| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
 Posted - January 18 2004 : 10:53:31 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "The fact that Custer didn't (attack), even though the ford was said to be only lightly defended by Indians, suggests that he had a change in plan by the time he got there...(He Dog) says 'There was no fighting while Custer down near river but a few shots down there'"
REPLY : Yes, but Curley's Camp interview says that the opposite bank of the river was 'thick with dismounted Sioux', with hundreds more galloping up on horseback to meet Custer's mounted troopers. In these circumstances, it wouldn't have taken much a firefight to convince Custer that a crossing of the ford was simply not feasible.
The fact that Custer's soldiers did not make much of an effort to cross does not neccesarily prove that he had formulated a new plan by the time he reached Ford B. There is certainly more than one interpretation of this event.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 ; Where does (Martin) say....(he saw) a Custer withdrawal from the river?
REPLY : Camp p.104:
'When I got up on the elevation I looked behind and saw Custer's command over on the flat and Indians over in the village, riding toward the river and waving buffalo hides. The battalion appeared at this time to be falling back from the river. This is the last I saw of the five companies alive...'
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Martin's memory was freshest (during his court testimony.)
REPLY : Martin, when asked by Camp why he didn't mention various events in his court testimony, replied that it was because he was never asked.
ANONOMOUS POSTER 8169 : I'm doubtful whether Flying By was realy a witness...Flying By goes on to say...'By the time I got to Custer, the fighting had been going on QUITE AWHILE.'
REPLY : Flying By was originally at the Reno battle. However, unlike Gall, who was a Hunkpapa, Flying By was an Ogalalla, and it is understandable that he would frequently glance back toward the Ogalalla camp to see if everything was alright. Perhaps at this distance, all he could make out was four of five flags.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Foolish Elk) goes on to state that Indians 'soon came up in large numbers' which implies that they were not in large numbers before. Foolish Elk says nothing about 'driving' the soldiers back. he simply says they 'followed on after Custer.'"
REPLY : It is likely that it was the convergence of Indians toward the ford, rather than the actual fighting, which convinced Custer that it was impossible to cross and that he had to withdraw his force.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Two Eagles...says that...'There were a few (who) went from (Nye-Cartwright) to (Calhoun Hill) who did so when the main body of the troops went to (Ford) B'"
REPLY : So now we have Russell White Bear asserting that four companies rode north and only a gray horse troop went to the ford, and Two Eagles asserting that the 'main body' went down to the ford while only 'a few' went from Nye-Cartwright to Calhoun Hill. But neither one of them say what must be said in order for this theory to work. There are no Indians asserting that three companies remained at Luce ridge while two companies went to the ford.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 :(Martin's) ability to judge a 'consensus of opinion' is questionable.
REPLY : Martin's recollections are the only solid evidence as to what Custer's plan was. It does seem likely that this plan is one that Custer would favor, given his actions at the Wa****a battle.
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 11:36:52 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "The fact that Custer didn't (attack), even though the ford was said to be only lightly defended by Indians, suggests that he had a change in plan by the time he got there...(He Dog) says 'There was no fighting while Custer down near river but a few shots down there'"
REPLY : Yes, but Curley's Camp interview says that the opposite bank of the river was 'thick with dismounted Sioux', with hundreds more galloping up on horseback to meet Custer's mounted troopers. In these circumstances, it wouldn't have taken much a firefight to convince Custer that a crossing of the ford was simply not feasible.
While He Dog says there were only 15-20 warriors at the ford when the soldiers approached, and according to Foolish Elk, the large numbers of warriors only came up after the soldiers had sat on their horses and done some firing into the village.
quote:
The fact that Custer's soldiers did not make much of an effort to cross does not neccesarily prove that he had formulated a new plan by the time he reached Ford B. There is certainly more than one interpretation of this event.
Yes, and I gave you one. Since there is no way to know what Custer was thinking, we can only judge him by his actions, and the fact that he did not charge the village makes it likely he did not intend to.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 ; Where does (Martin) say....(he saw) a Custer withdrawal from the river?
REPLY : Camp p.104:
'When I got up on the elevation I looked behind and saw Custer's command over on the flat and Indians over in the village, riding toward the river and waving buffalo hides. The battalion appeared at this time to be falling back from the river. This is the last I saw of the five companies alive...'
It is unlikely Martin saw any such thing. First of all, the very earliest statement Martin ever made to anybody was when he met Benteen shortly afterward, and claimed the Indians were "skedaddling". I don't think even a dull thick-witted Italian could contrue a withdrawal in the face of onrushing Indians to be a "skedaddle" of the latter. Second, this claim is inconsistent with other statements he made. He told Col. Graham, for instance, "The last I saw of the command they were going down into the ravine.... [a few minutes later] I heard firing back of me, and I looked around and saw Indians, some waving buffalo robes and some shooting. They had been in ambush." Notice how in both accounts he mentions the Indians waving buffalo robes, but in the Graham account no mention at all is made of any soldier withdrawal; indeed, the "last" time Martin says he saw them, they were advancing.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Martin's memory was freshest (during his court testimony.)
REPLY : Martin, when asked by Camp why he didn't mention various events in his court testimony, replied that it was because he was never asked.
I'm not sure why you're taking my quotes out of order. When I said that, it was in reference to Martin's different versions of Custer's remark upon seeing the village. Obviously, whether or not Martin was asked has no relevance there: he gave one version of the quote in 1879, and a different one 40 years later. It's not difficult to decide which is more trustworthy. As for Martin's excuses, he *was* asked --- "Tell what you saw going back" is one of the questions given to him. He mentions seeing Reno fighting, but nothing at all of Custer withdrawing.
quote:
ANONOMOUS POSTER 8169 : I'm doubtful whether Flying By was realy a witness...Flying By goes on to say...'By the time I got to Custer, the fighting had been going on QUITE AWHILE.'
REPLY : Flying By was originally at the Reno battle. However, unlike Gall, who was a Hunkpapa, Flying By was an Ogalalla, and it is understandable that he would frequently glance back toward the Ogalalla camp to see if everything was alright. Perhaps at this distance, all he could make out was four of five flags.
Pure speculation. If Flying By saw those flags (which is not at all clear) he could have seen them anywhere. His account makes it clear that he was not present at Ford B until much later.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Foolish Elk) goes on to state that Indians 'soon came up in large numbers' which implies that they were not in large numbers before. Foolish Elk says nothing about 'driving' the soldiers back. he simply says they 'followed on after Custer.'"
REPLY : It is likely that it was the convergence of Indians toward the ford, rather than the actual fighting, which convinced Custer that it was impossible to cross and that he had to withdraw his force.
So I suppose you're revising your opinion that it was the "stiff resistance" of the Indians at the ford that blunted Custer's charge?
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Two Eagles...says that...'There were a few (who) went from (Nye-Cartwright) to (Calhoun Hill) who did so when the main body of the troops went to (Ford) B'"
REPLY : So now we have Russell White Bear asserting that four companies rode north and only a gray horse troop went to the ford, and Two Eagles asserting that the 'main body' went down to the ford while only 'a few' went from Nye-Cartwright to Calhoun Hill. But neither one of them say what must be said in order for this theory to work. There are no Indians asserting that three companies remained at Luce ridge while two companies went to the ford.
There are no Indians asserting that five companies went down to the Ford either, that I know of. The important thing about those accounts is that they make the point that there was no united movement towards the ford: some troops went, others did not. From other evidence we can be pretty sure that Custer's force was divided into two battalions: Yates (E and F), and Keogh (C, I, L). White Shield and Curley indicate the Gray Horse Co. was at least one unit that approached the ford, and White Shield notes that other soldiers were also at the ford: "one other company".
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 :(Martin's) ability to judge a 'consensus of opinion' is questionable.
REPLY : Martin's recollections are the only solid evidence as to what Custer's plan was. It does seem likely that this plan is one that Custer would favor, given his actions at the Wa****a battle.
We have no solid evidence as to what Custer's thinking was. Martin and Curley don't really cut it --- one spoke no English, and the other spoke it badly. As to whether Custer is likely to have favored such a plan, that's a different question.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 20 2004 : 11:31:36 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Since there is no way to know what Custer was thinking, we can only judge him by his actions, and the fact that he did not charge the village makes it likely that he did not intend to."
REPLY : If Custer is to be judged soley by his actions, then his total lack of defensive preperations make it virtually certain that he intended to cross the river and attack the village.
For if Custer never intended to attack, if he sent only two companies to Ford B as you suppose, then he certainly knew that such a tactical movement would bring a response from his enemies, and that this response could only consist of a crossing-in-force of the river by large numbers of Indians. He certainly knew also that the terrain in which he would have to fight was broken, uneven and wholy unsuited to cavalry charges.
Knowing, as he must have, that a huge force of his foes would soon be upon him, and that such battle which would ensue could only have been fought dismounted and on foot, Custer would surely have made some defensive preperations.
The fact is that there is not a scrap of evidence of any defensive preperations made by Custer at the time that his adversaries crossed the river. At this time, he had not dismounted his men, he had not detailed horse-holders, he had not formed his men in a skirmish line, and he had not deployed his troops in any of the area's many ravines and gullies that could have afforded them protection from bullets and arrows. The five companies under Custer's command were caught totally unprepared. Such lack of defensive preparations constitutes proof of an intent to attack.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "He Dog says there were only 15-20 warriors at
the ford when the soldiers approached, and according to Foolish Elk, the large number of warriors only came up had sat on their horses and done some firing into the village...So I suppose you're revising your opinion that it was the 'stiff resistance' of the Indians at the ford that blunted Custer's charge."
REPLY : I am prepared to concede the point that there was no stiff resistance at the ford if you will concede the point that the presence of large numbers of warriors galloping to the ford would be a very good reason to call off an intended charge by the 7th cav into the village.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Martin) met Benteen shortly afterward, and claimed the Indians were 'skedaddling'....Martin gave one version of the (Custer) quote in 1879, and a different one 40 years later...(Martin's court testimony) mentions seeing Reno fighting, but nothing at all of seeing Custer withdrawing...(I)n the Graham account no mention at all is made (by Martin) of any soldier withdrawal...Martin...spoke (English) badly."
REPLY : In his Camp interview, Martin denied he made the remark about the Indians 'skedaddling'. He said he told Captain Benteen that Custer was under attack. Martin's failure to mention important facts in his Graham interview and in his testimony at the 1879 Court of Inquiry is surprising, but it does not prove him a liar. He is not changing his story, merely adding to his observationns. Nor does his broken English prove that he could not understand what Custer was saying to the troops.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : If Flying By saw these flags (which is not at all clear) he could have seen them anywhere."
REPLY : Flying By stated:
'As soon as Reno retreated, more soldiers (Custer) were in sight from village further down the stream. The soldiers had four or five flags. Custer acted as though he would cross and attack village.'
This sounds like all five of Custer's companies at the ford and poised to strike.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "The important thing is that there was no united movement toward the ford: some troops went, others did not."
REPLY : These two accounts directly contradict each other as to how many troops went each way. One is from a Crow translator who wasn't even at the battle. The other mentions 'a few' troops who went directly to Calhoun ridge without first going to the ford. How many is 'a few'? A small detachment of six to ten men? A company? Some stragglers perhaps? What is needed is more detail, which Two Eagles does not supply. He does say, however, that the main body of Custer's troops went to Ford B, which supports the conclusion that the plan was indeed to attack the village. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 02:09:22 AM
|
Here's the main problem with all of this: there is no guarantee that Custer looked at the terrain to the north and deemed it indefensible. So its not the best ground, but think about Custer's record. Did he ever look at a disadvantage and decide he couldn't overcome it? So the terrain wasn't favorable, but here was a village, full of warriors. It could not flee, and the warriors sure seemed to want to fight. Its possible Custer decided it was not feasible to take the village at the time, that engaging the warriors, defeating them and then taking the village. Or, at worst, stalemating them and then chasing the village towards Terry/Gibbon. But staying north of the village would keep them from fleeing too far BEFORE he could defeat the warriors. Staying at MTC to fight it out or moving south would give Reno and Benteen a chance to join him, but it would also leave the village to his north, and the warriors could gather between him and the non-combatants. Move north, limit the initial front of the Sioux and Cheyenne to the south, put pressure on the non-combatants by moving further north while holding the warriors in check with several companies. Benteen and Reno should arrive soon, in the warriors' rear, a threat to the village and causing the warriors problems by squeezing them against the 7th's two halves, one of which would be made up of mostly fresh troopers.
If that was the case, obviously it didn't work. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 12:35:00 PM
|
Sorry- duplicate message.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 21 2004 1:31:23 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 12:37:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Since there is no way to know what Custer was thinking, we can only judge him by his actions, and the fact that he did not charge the village makes it likely that he did not intend to."
REPLY : If Custer is to be judged soley by his actions, then his total lack of defensive preperations make it virtually certain that he intended to cross the river and attack the village.
The lack of any evidence that he made a serious effort to cross the river tends to puncture such assurances. I'm not sure what you mean about "defensive preperations"; anyway, a few days later soldiers saw evidence of a skirmish line on Calhoun Hill, and the distribution of horse corpses on Custer Hill led many to think they had been shot to use for protection.
quote:
For if Custer never intended to attack, if he sent only two companies to Ford B as you suppose, then he certainly knew that such a tactical movement would bring a response from his enemies, and that this response could only consist of a crossing-in-force of the river by large numbers of Indians. He certainly knew also that the terrain in which he would have to fight was broken, uneven and wholy unsuited to cavalry charges.
You have no idea whether Custer "certainly knew" any of this. I'm not even sure I know this.
quote:
Knowing, as he must have, that a huge force of his foes would soon be upon him, and that such battle which would ensue could only have been fought dismounted and on foot, Custer would surely have made some defensive preperations.
Like what? And why do you presume to think that you know what Custer "must have known"?
quote:
The fact is that there is not a scrap of evidence of any defensive preperations made by Custer at the time that his adversaries crossed the river. At this time, he had not dismounted his men, he had not detailed horse-holders, he had not formed his men in a skirmish line, and he had not deployed his troops in any of the area's many ravines and gullies that could have afforded them protection from bullets and arrows. The five companies under Custer's command were caught totally unprepared. Such lack of defensive preparations constitutes proof of an intent to attack.
Sounds rather dumb to attack and not be prepared for a setback. If you want to believe the companies which approached the ford intended to cross, fine (although I don't think their behavior warrants that interpretation) --- but your contention that all five companies approached the ford with intention to attack is rather eccentric. It creates more problems with the evidence than it resolves.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "He Dog says there were only 15-20 warriors at
the ford when the soldiers approached, and according to Foolish Elk, the large number of warriors only came up had sat on their horses and done some firing into the village...So I suppose you're revising your opinion that it was the 'stiff resistance' of the Indians at the ford that blunted Custer's charge."
REPLY : I am prepared to concede the point that there was no stiff resistance at the ford if you will concede the point that the presence of large numbers of warriors galloping to the ford would be a very good reason to call off an intended charge by the 7th cav into the village.
What was making the warriors gallop to the ford?
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Martin) met Benteen shortly afterward, and claimed the Indians were 'skedaddling'....Martin gave one version of the (Custer) quote in 1879, and a different one 40 years later...(Martin's court testimony) mentions seeing Reno fighting, but nothing at all of seeing Custer withdrawing...(I)n the Graham account no mention at all is made (by Martin) of any soldier withdrawal...Martin...spoke (English) badly."
REPLY : In his Camp interview, Martin denied he made the remark about the Indians 'skedaddling'.
And I don't believe him. People tend to deny or forget things that make them look bad. Reportedly, Kanipe was also making an ass of himself as he delivered his message, bragging about how "we got 'em," and such like. Daniel Kanipe had a memory that was praised by Walter Camp as nearly the best he had ever encountered, yet somehow he "forgot" about that part and never mentioned it.
quote:
He said he told Captain Benteen that Custer was under attack. Martin's failure to mention important facts in his Graham interview and in his testimony at the 1879 Court of Inquiry is surprising, but it does not prove him a liar.
I think his memory was just playing tricks on him, as it well would, after 30 years.
quote:
He is not changing his story, merely adding to his observationns. Nor does his broken English prove that he could not understand what Custer was saying to the troops.
No one ever said it proved anything. It simply makes him a dubious source.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : If Flying By saw these flags (which is not at all clear) he could have seen them anywhere."
REPLY : Flying By stated:
'As soon as Reno retreated, more soldiers (Custer) were in sight from village further down the stream. The soldiers had four or five flags. Custer acted as though he would cross and attack village.'
This sounds like all five of Custer's companies at the ford and poised to strike.
It sounds like hearsay, with the sighting of the flags placed vaguely downstream from where the Indians were killing Reno's fleeing troops. I don't know why you assume each flag represents a company. Custer had seven flags with him: the five company guidons, plus a battle flag and a regimental flag carried by Color Sergeants Vickory and Hughes.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "The important thing is that there was no united movement toward the ford: some troops went, others did not."
REPLY : These two accounts directly contradict each other as to how many troops went each way. One is from a Crow translator who wasn't even at the battle. The other mentions 'a few' troops who went directly to Calhoun ridge without first going to the ford. How many is 'a few'? A small detachment of six to ten men? A company? Some stragglers perhaps? What is needed is more detail, which Two Eagles does not supply. He does say, however, that the main body of Custer's troops went to Ford B, which supports the conclusion that the plan was indeed to attack the village.
What these accounts directly contradict is your theory that all of Custer's battalion went to the ford. White Shield, Two Eagles, and Curley variously, one or the other, corroborate each other on some important details: that the Gray Horse Company was one that approached the river; that some soldiers approached the river while others did not. Can you produce anything to show they were mistaken? Any Indian number five companies who attacked the ford?
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 21 2004 1:18:35 PM |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 3:30:58 PM
|
Also, with regard to the 5 flags account, any Indian statement that uses "numbers" would be suspect. Its pretty clear that the white man's counting system wasn't exactly understood by the warriors. Who knows how many flags were truly down near the MTC ford, as an Indian saying five could mean seven, or two, or...
I believe it was Red Horse who said 388 soldiers were killed on Custer's field, and 160 warriors were killed and 136 wounded. And the 388 number was arrived at by using sticks. So clearly, numerical reckoning was a shaky prospect with the Sioux and Cheyenne. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 11:28:06 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "What these accounts directly contradict is your theory that all of Custer's battalion went to the ford. White Shield, Two Eagles and Curley variously, one or the other, corroborate each other on some important details: that the Gray Horse Company was the one that approached the river, that some soldiers approached the river while others did not. Can you produce anything to show they were mistaken? Any Indian number five companies who attacked the ford?"
REPLY : Yes, indeed there is an Indian who can verify that all five companies attacked the ford, and his name is...Curley. In three seperate Camp interviews, in 1908, 1909 and 1910, Curley asserts that Custer led his entire column to Ford B, with intent to cross the river and charge the village. Curley's account is supported by Martin, who said that Custer and his officers planned to cross over and capture the village, with a view toward siezing the non-combatants as hostages, and by Flying By, who saw "four or five flags" carried by troopers at ford B, who "acted as though they would cross and attack".
Two Eagles asserts that the "main body" of troops, all but "a few" came to the ford. For all we know, he may be talking about a dozen stragglers.
White Shield saw a gray horse troop and another troop at the ford. For all we know, he may have simply failed to see the other three companies.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : (Flying By's account) sounds like hearsay...(Martin was) a dubious source (whose) memory was just playing tricks on him.
REPLY : Curley, Flying By and Martin mutually corroborate one another.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Why do you presume to think that you know what Custer 'must have known'?...You have no idea whether Custer 'certainly knew' any of this."
REPLY : Would you have us believe that Custer did not intend to initiate hostilities by having his men fire their guns across the river into the village? Are you saying that there was no risk whatsoever that the Indians would respond to these gunshots by crossing the river and attacking?
Would you have us believe that the terrain of the Custer battlefield is ideal for cavalry charges?
Surely not.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "I'm not sure what you mean about 'defensive preperations'; anyway, a few days later soldiers saw evidence of a skimish line on Calhoun hill, and the distribution of horse corpses on Custer Hill led many to think they had been shot to use for protection."
REPLY : These hasty defenses were set up only well after the large numbers of Indian warriors had crossed the river.
My point is that Custer erected no defenses BEFORE the Indians crossed the river, and this shows us that Custer did not contemplate fighting a defensive battle there.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 11:51:41 PM
|
But the point is he didn't have to erect defenses, nor did he have to cross the river to wage an offensive battle.
I really think you need to consider the idea that Custer was not necessarily forced north.
Martin was sent off before any companies were near the river. He may have seen them all heading down MTC, but he didn't see what happened after.
Custer wasn't on the ridges where his men died before the Indians crossed the river. And if he had any idea that a defensive posture would be required, its doubtful there'd have been almost 3/4 of a mile between his wings. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 22 2004 : 12:11:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "What these accounts directly contradict is your theory that all of Custer's battalion went to the ford. White Shield, Two Eagles and Curley variously, one or the other, corroborate each other on some important details: that the Gray Horse Company was the one that approached the river, that some soldiers approached the river while others did not. Can you produce anything to show they were mistaken? Any Indian number five companies who attacked the ford?"
REPLY : Yes, indeed there is an Indian who can verify that all five companies attacked the ford, and his name is...Curley. In three seperate Camp interviews, in 1908, 1909 and 1910, Curley asserts that Custer led his entire column to Ford B, with intent to cross the river and charge the village.
I looked at all three interviews and find no place where Curley asserted that the entire column went to Ford B. He did mention (in 1910) that the "whole command" was at Calhoun Ridge for a bit, but you make more claims for Curley than he does himself.
quote:
Curley's account is supported by Martin, who said that Custer and his officers planned to cross over and capture the village, with a view toward siezing the non-combatants as hostages,
Yesterday, I ask if you can put up any evidence that states that all of Custer's companies went to the ford. In reply, you come up with a bent straw in Curley's interviews. You then assert that this so-called Curley claim is "supported by Martin," who said nothing at all relevant to the question. Okay....
quote:
and by Flying By, who saw "four or five flags" carried by troopers at ford B, who "acted as though they would cross and attack".
Flying By (so far as we know) never said he saw any of that, and his account notes that he only came to Ford B after stuff had been going on there for "quite awhile"; in addition, the sighting of the flags is not placed at Ford B, merely somewhere downstream from Reno - which could be Ford B, but might not. Furthermore, if 4 or 5 flags were seen, by anybody, anywhere, then we're still missing 2 to 3.
I'm now puzzled *why* you believe Custer led a united movement to the ford, when every time an informant tried to get specific on the question, they indicated less.
quote:
Two Eagles asserts that the "main body" of troops, all but "a few" came to the ford. For all we know, he may be talking about a dozen stragglers.
We don't know what Two Eagles (or, more precisely, his translator) meant by "main body" or "a few". It is another bit of clear evidence, however, that Custer's entire command did not go to the ford.
quote:
White Shield saw a gray horse troop and another troop at the ford. For all we know, he may have simply failed to see the other three companies.
If so, he was like every other warrior present at the Ford. None of them, so far as I know, counted five companies on the attack there. Wonderful thing, these invisible companies of Custer's.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : (Flying By's account) sounds like hearsay...(Martin was) a dubious source (whose) memory was just playing tricks on him.
REPLY : Curley, Flying By and Martin mutually corroborate one another.
Only by reading into them stuff that is not there. Curley never says the entire command went there, and according to the White Bear letter, he specifically remembered that only a portion sortied to the river; the Flying By interview never claims that the flags were seen by him; and Martin, who says nothing about whether or not the command was united, tells only of seeing a withdrawal from the river in one Camp interview ---- he told nothing of it to Benteen or to the 1879 Court, and it contradicts what he told Graham about the "last" time he saw Custer's men, in which they were heading forward. It even contradicts what he told Benteen a mere hour later, too.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Why do you presume to think that you know what Custer 'must have known'?...You have no idea whether Custer 'certainly knew' any of this."
REPLY : Would you have us believe that Custer did not intend to initiate hostilities by having his men fire their guns across the river into the village? Are you saying that there was no risk whatsoever that the Indians would respond to these gunshots by crossing the river and attacking?
No, I'm saying that while your confidence that you can read Custer's mind may bring comfort to you as you construct your theories, it is built on nothing.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "I'm not sure what you mean about 'defensive preperations'; anyway, a few days later soldiers saw evidence of a skimish line on Calhoun hill, and the distribution of horse corpses on Custer Hill led many to think they had been shot to use for protection."
REPLY : These hasty defenses were set up only well after the large numbers of Indian warriors had crossed the river.
My point is that Custer erected no defenses BEFORE the Indians crossed the river, and this shows us that Custer did not contemplate fighting a defensive battle there.
Okay- I see the point, but not the relevance. Who's saying he did?
R. Larsen
P.S. Do me a favor and quit cutting and pasting my comments out of order when you reply to them. It makes it confusing to me, especially when you join two quotes of mine that originally referred to different subjects. Thanks.
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 22 2004 12:17:31 PM |
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2004 : 12:50:09 AM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "I looked at all three interviews and found no place where Curley asserted that the entire column went to Ford B,"
REPLY : Might I be of some assistance to you?
Page 157 (1908 interview) : 'After Bouyer and Curley joined Custer, THE COMMAND passed rapidly down to Ford B.'
Page 162 (1909 interview) : 'Custer's COMMAND hove in sight, galloping right down the coulee toward the river...and struck the river 1,000 ft. downstream from its mouth.'
Also, might not Russell White Bear's account of Curley's story be describing events which transpired AFTER Custer's retreat from the ford? Isn't he really saying that Custer sent the Gray Horse Troop back to the ford (to act as a rear guard) and rode north with the other four companies (to Nye-Cartwright ridge)?
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You..assert this so-called Curley claim is 'supported by Martin', who said nothing at all relevant to the question..."
REPLY : Martin stated that it was the spoken intention of Custer and his officers to cross the river and capture the village.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "If 4 to 5 flags were seen (by Flying By at Ford B) we're still missing 2 to 3."
REPLY : According to your version of events only two flags, those of 'E' troop and 'F' troop, should have been visible.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Flying By...never claims the flags were seen by him."
REPLY : He said they 'were in sight'.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 "Martin...says nothing avout whether the command was united, tells only of seeing awithdrawal from the river"
REPLY : Martin said he saw 'THE COMMAND...THE FIVE COMPANIES' falling back from the river.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : (Martin) contradicts what he told Graham about the 'last' time he saw Custer's men (and) contradicts what he told Benteen an hour later..."
REPLY : Captain Benteen's account of the various aspects of the battle (such as the nature of his orders from Custer, the length of time spent at the morass, whether or not firing could be heard downstream from Reno Hill) was in direct contradiction to the accounts of several other officers and men of the 7th Cavalry. It is therefore not surprising that he contadicts Martin too.
There were two seperate 'last' sightings of Custer by Martin, but perhaps he did not think the second one was important enough to mention when he was interviewed by Graham.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "I'm saying that your confidence that you can read Custer's mind...is built on nothing"
REPLY : You are missing the point entirely. This is certainly not an exercise in 'mind-reading'.
Your theory is that Custer attacked the village with only two companies at Ford B, and did not intend to cross the river. Assuming this to be the case, do you or do you not think that it would be a reasonable assumption that Custer would deem it very likely that the Indians would respond to this attack by counter-attacking across the river?
Assuming it to be the case that Custer knew that the Indians would probably launch a counter-attack, why, in your opinion did Custer not make any defensive preperations to meet it? Why, in your view, were he and his men caught so totally unprepared, and destroyed so rapidly?
I eagerly await your reply.
|
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2004 : 01:39:22 AM
|
Custer did make preparations. Though not defensive ones. He set up a rear guard, with Calhoun's L Company forming skirmish lines on or near Calhoun Hill, and before that, there were most likely several volleys fired to cover the withdrawl of E and F.
His defeat had little if anything to do with the counterattack after part of his battalion approached the river, unless you consider the next hour or so one big counterattack. His men were unprepared and his battalion was destroyed so rapidly because they weren't on the defensive. But why would they not be on the defensive? Because they were still fighting offensively. Most likely, the situation became untenable before Custer could make the switch from offense to defense. But if Custer wasn't ready for the initial counterattack, would there be only a few dead left in their wake from the MTC area to Calhoun Hill? The accounts of the initial attacks basically stated that the mounted attack did not succeed, and the warriors had to find another way to overrun the position. And this was only one company out of the five. Does that sound like Custer needed to be thinking defensively? Sounds like Custer was prepared, even with just one company engaged. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 23 2004 : 12:33:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "I looked at all three interviews and found no place where Curley asserted that the entire column went to Ford B,"
REPLY : Might I be of some assistance to you?
Page 157 (1908 interview) : 'After Bouyer and Curley joined Custer, THE COMMAND passed rapidly down to Ford B.'
Page 162 (1909 interview) : 'Custer's COMMAND hove in sight, galloping right down the coulee toward the river...and struck the river 1,000 ft. downstream from its mouth.'
Again, you're having to read stuff into Curley's account that isn't actually there. "The command" may mean the same thing as "the entire column," or "all five companies," but it equally well may not. Other Curley accounts, plus the fact that he felt it worthwhile to note the "whole command's" presence at Calhoun Ridge, suggest it didn't. I regret too that the accounts aren't always as specific as we today would like, but it services nothing to pretend they mean more than they do.
quote:
Also, might not Russell White Bear's account of Curley's story be describing events which transpired AFTER Custer's retreat from the ford? Isn't he really saying that Custer sent the Gray Horse Troop back to the ford (to act as a rear guard) and rode north with the other four companies (to Nye-Cartwright ridge)?
Two trips to Ford B sounds needlessly complicated, nor really supported by the accounts themselves.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You..assert this so-called Curley claim is 'supported by Martin', who said nothing at all relevant to the question..."
REPLY : Martin stated that it was the spoken intention of Custer and his officers to cross the river and capture the village.
Which isn't evidence that Custer led a united movement to the Ford.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "If 4 to 5 flags were seen (by Flying By at Ford B) we're still missing 2 to 3."
REPLY : According to your version of events only two flags, those of 'E' troop and 'F' troop, should have been visible.
I don't maintain the flags were seen at Ford B. The actual account in "Custer in '76" only places the sighting somewhere downstream from Reno, which could have been Ford B, but might not.
I've been sick with the flu lately, so I regret I haven't been able to give this discussion as much attention as I normally would have. But I had a vague memory of another Flying By account, and this morning I placed it. It's another Camp interview, in Hardorff's collection "Camp, Custer and the Little Bighorn". In this one, he says:
"When first saw Custer, the soldiers were coming down the coulee toward the village. They came down to the forks of a coulee and the command divided into two parts. One of them we chased up the hill, and killed most of them on east part of the ridge." (pg. 90).
So much for Flying By.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Flying By...never claims the flags were seen by him."
REPLY : He said they 'were in sight'.
All it means is that they were seen, possibly by Flying By, possibly by someone else. Unfortunately for theory-builders, the accounts left us don't always give us the specificity we would like. Anyway, four or five flags is not evidence of a united column.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 "Martin...says nothing avout whether the command was united, tells only of seeing awithdrawal from the river"
REPLY : Martin said he saw 'THE COMMAND...THE FIVE COMPANIES' falling back from the river.
My mistake, though that "hasty glance" runs at loggerheads against other evidence. See further below.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : (Martin) contradicts what he told Graham about the 'last' time he saw Custer's men (and) contradicts what he told Benteen an hour later..."
REPLY : Captain Benteen's account of the various aspects of the battle (such as the nature of his orders from Custer, the length of time spent at the morass, whether or not firing could be heard downstream from Reno Hill) was in direct contradiction to the accounts of several other officers and men of the 7th Cavalry. It is therefore not surprising that he contadicts Martin too.
Martin contradicts everybody else when he claimed Benteen sent him on to the pack train after he delivered the Cooke note. Mathey and McDougall denied ever receiving such orders, and Benteen denied ever sending it, which wouldn't be in his self-interest if it was untrue, since Benteen's failure to make any contact with the pack train after receiving an order to "bring packs" probably represents a lapse in judgement, if nothing else. Martin contradicts himself also when it comes to this "withdrawal" in his other accounts. Edgerly, in fact, was near Benteen, and remembered Martin boasting of how they had the Indians, and that he had mentioned Reno "charging it and killing everybody," which is consistent with what Martin told the Court and Graham about what he had seen after he left Custer (sightings of Reno, nothing more of Custer), but not with Custer already engaged and in retreat.
quote:
There were two seperate 'last' sightings of Custer by Martin, but perhaps he did not think the second one was important enough to mention when he was interviewed by Graham.
This is special pleading, for last means last. And you don't think the last time he saw Custer would be important to mention? And the fact that he was in withdrawal? It takes a lot of special pleading for this anomalous account to make sense.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "I'm saying that your confidence that you can read Custer's mind...is built on nothing"
REPLY : You are missing the point entirely. This is certainly not an exercise in 'mind-reading'.
You presume to know what Custer "certainly knew," or other variants. What else is it but mind-reading?
quote:
Your theory is that Custer attacked the village with only two companies at Ford B, and did not intend to cross the river. Assuming this to be the case, do you or do you not think that it would be a reasonable assumption that Custer would deem it very likely that the Indians would respond to this attack by counter-attacking across the river?
You claim that Custer "certainly knew" they would, and that they would do it in force --- even cross the river and "counter-attack". And that it was something Custer "knew" he couldn't handle without bunkering up. I don't buy that. Indians were too unpredictable to know for sure what they would do in any given situation. If fighting Indians was as easy as pushing buttons we'd never have names like Fetterman, Custer, Dade, St. Clair, Perry, Reynolds, Grattan, Beasley, ad nauseum.
quote:
Assuming it to be the case that Custer knew that the Indians would probably launch a counter-attack, why, in your opinion did Custer not make any defensive preperations to meet it? Why, in your view, were he and his men caught so totally unprepared, and destroyed so rapidly?
Because I doubt Custer was on the defensive until everything on Battle Ridge went to ****. Assumptions weary me.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2004 : 1:07:06 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "you're having to read stuff into Curley's account that isn't actually there. 'The command' may mean....'all five companies, or it equally well may not...accounts aren't always as specific as we today would like, but it services nothing to pretend they mean more then they do."
REPLY : It is absurd to assert that Curley's phrase could have meant anything other than Custer's entire column, the five companies.
Not once in Curley's Camp interviews does Curley mention Custer's column splitting into two battalions after leaving Major Reno's column. Curley even places Custer himself at the ford. The logical inference from this is that all five companies attacked Ford B.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Two trips to Ford B (are) not really supported by the account's themselves"
REPLY : Russell White Bear's letters merely say that a gray horse troop went off in the direction of the ford. The never say it actually got there, or that it didn't turn back. This could represent Custer's rear guard, to cover his retreat. This rear guard could have turned back before reaching the ford, and rejoined Custer's other four companies.
If Two Eagles saw this, he could have concluded that "a few" of Custer's column, seperate from the "main body", never reached Ford B.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : (Martin's account of Custer's announcement that the river would be crossed and the village captured) isn't evidence that Custer led a united movement to the ford."
REPLY : Custer's stated plan would logically require the strongest force possible, all five companies.
It is absurd to suggest that such a plan could be enacted by sending three companies to Luce ridge, a mile and a half from the ford.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Another Flying By account...says
'When we first saw Custer, the soldiers were coming down the coulee toward the village. They came down to the forks of a coulee and the command divided into two parts. One of them we chased up a hill, and killed most of them on the east part of the ridge.'
So much for Flying By."
REPLY : I always thought that the coulee Flying By was refering to was Reno Creek, and that the division of the command at the forks was the seperation of Reno's force from Custer's at the North Fork.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Four or five flags is not evidence of a united column."
REPLY : Flying By's account certainly means the bulk of Custer's force, and possibly the whole column, were at Ford B.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Martin claimed Benteen sent him on to the pack train."
REPLY : Where does Martin claim this? Martin stayed with Benteen's column until it reached Reno Hill, did he not?
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Edgerly...remebered Martin boasting of how they had the Indians and that he mentioned Reno 'charging in and killing everybody.'"
REPLY : So Edgerly does not back up Benteen's claim that Martin told him the Indians were 'skiddaddling'. I see.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Last means last. You don't think the last time he saw Custer would be important to mention?"
REPLY : Even if the Graham's version of last time that Martin saw Custer is correct, it hardly helps your case. According to the Graham interview, Martin saw Custer's five companies galloping down the ravine, with the gray horse troop in the middle. This puts Custer's united column only a minute or two from arriving at Ford B. Since Curley's account also mentions 'Custer's command' galloping to Ford B without stopping, it reinforces the idea that Custer took his entire column to the ford, and not just a portion of it.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "You presume to know what Custer 'certainly knew'...What else is this but mind-reading?"
REPLY : It is totally absurd, and quite unreasonable, to suggest that Custer would not have known that an attack by his troops upon Ford B with two companies would likely bring about an Indian counter-attack across the river.
If the Indians for some reason did not cross the river, then the three companies at Luce ridge were too far away to support Reno, and Custer had promised that Reno would be 'supported by the whole outfit'.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "...and that this is something Custer 'knew' he couldn't handle without hunkering up."
REPLY : Yes, Custer may have had something else in mind, but if so, what?
There is certainly no evidence that Custer set up a trap or an ambush either.
Perhaps he planned a mounted charge, but the terrain is unfavorable for cavalry charges on the east bank of the river.
If he was planning to lure the Indians east of the river, and then sandwich them, between himself on the north and Reno and Benteen in the south, as El Crab suggests, then why didn't he tell Reno and Benteen any of this?
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2004 : 1:41:28 PM
|
On page 126 of the Custer Myth is a map from Century Magazine, 1892. Medicine Tail Coulee is called Reno Creek. Just one of many enjoyable treats provided through the years, making precise analysis of testimony so difficult. Perhaps pointless.
I'd also like to point out that it is highly unlikely Curly used the word 'command,' as I don't think there would be an exact equivilent in Crow. Traditionally, they used 'Custer,' or whatever phrase or word was then popular for him. But they used 'Custer' for all five companies as well. So in Curley's testimony, it is possible he used 'Custer' sometimes to refer to the man, and sometimes to those with him, and sometimes to those he was not with at the time because they were 'his' men. And the translator tried to be helpful by deciding what was meant.
And again, we have zero idea if the guys who translated were as good as they themselves thought, granting good intentions. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 24 2004 : 3:29:46 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "you're having to read stuff into Curley's account that isn't actually there. 'The command' may mean....'all five companies, or it equally well may not...accounts aren't always as specific as we today would like, but it services nothing to pretend they mean more then they do."
REPLY : It is absurd to assert that Curley's phrase could have meant anything other than Custer's entire column, the five companies.
Now you're reading Curley's mind too? Or his translator? Sometimes this gets confusing.
quote:
Not once in Curley's Camp interviews does Curley mention Custer's column splitting into two battalions after leaving Major Reno's column. Curley even places Custer himself at the ford. The logical inference from this is that all five companies attacked Ford B.
I asked for evidence, not inferences. If you have to "infer" that Curley really meant to say what you want him to say, then you've got nothing.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Two trips to Ford B (are) not really supported by the account's themselves"
REPLY : Russell White Bear's letters merely say that a gray horse troop went off in the direction of the ford. The never say it actually got there, or that it didn't turn back. This could represent Custer's rear guard, to cover his retreat. This rear guard could have turned back before reaching the ford, and rejoined Custer's other four companies.
In other words, Russell White Bear's letters give no evidence for two trips to the Ford.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : (Martin's account of Custer's announcement that the river would be crossed and the village captured) isn't evidence that Custer led a united movement to the ford."
REPLY : Custer's stated plan would logically require the strongest force possible, all five companies.
You don't know what Custer's logic was, and at any rate, the Martin quote is doubtful.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Four or five flags is not evidence of a united column."
REPLY : Flying By's account certainly means the bulk of Custer's force, and possibly the whole column, were at Ford B.
No it doesn't, because (1) you don't know the flags were seen at Ford B, and (2) four flags could have meant as little as two companies and Custer's personal retinue.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Martin claimed Benteen sent him on to the pack train."
REPLY : Where does Martin claim this? Martin stayed with Benteen's column until it reached Reno Hill, did he not?
His Reno Court testimony. I'm sure you've read it.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Edgerly...remebered Martin boasting of how they had the Indians and that he mentioned Reno 'charging in and killing everybody.'"
REPLY : So Edgerly does not back up Benteen's claim that Martin told him the Indians were 'skiddaddling'. I see.
Well, I guess *I* don't see. If you mean he doesn't confirm Benteen on Martin's precise choice of words ("skedaddling"), then that is true, he doesn't; but the substance of Martin's bombast remains the same --- doing total damage to the idea that Martin saw Custer withdrawing from the river under Indian attack.
quote:
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Last means last. You don't think the last time he saw Custer would be important to mention?"
REPLY : Even if the Graham's version of last time that Martin saw Custer is correct, it hardly helps your case.
I'm not burdened with claiming Martin "helps" my case. Martin has no information relevant to how Custer came to Ford B, because he was gone before that took place.
quote:
Since Curley's account also mentions 'Custer's command' galloping to Ford B without stopping, it reinforces the idea that Custer took his entire column to the ford, and not just a portion of it.
You'd get further if you provided real evidence for this, not just a bunch of inferences that are directly challenged by other, actual evidence.
I'm still puzzled why you believe Custer advanced to Ford B in a united column, when all the accounts which get specific indicate less. Your entire approach seems to be governed by pre-made, pre-picked conclusions --- to which evidence is only an accessory, not the central core.
R. Larsen
|
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 24 2004 3:37:56 PM |
|
|
|
ABridgeTooFar
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - January 25 2004 : 8:46:12 PM
|
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : So now your reading Curley's mind too? Or his translator?...I asked for evidence, not inferences. If you have to 'infer' that Curley really meant to say what you want him to say, you've got nothing.
REPLY : The translation issue is a red herring. Curley words were translated by three different interpreters and each time the story was the same: CUSTER, CUSTER'S COMMAND, THE COMMAND went to Ford B.
Curley did not say PART OF THE COMMAND went to the ford, and he did not say anything about three companies splitting off to go to Luce ridge or anywhere else.
It is there in plain English, it would say the same in plain Crow, and anyone who says otherwise will have to eat crow.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : Russell White Bear's letters give no evidence for two trips to the ford.
REPLY : They say nothing at all about Ford B. They only say that Colonel Custer sent a gray horse troop toward the river.
My point is that a theory that Custer sent a company back to cover his retreat from the ford is more reconcilable with the other evidence -- Curley's Camp interviews, Two Eagles and Flying By -- than a theory that two companies went to Ford B and three to Luce ridge.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 "You don't know what Custer's logic was..."
REPLY : Custer said that Major Reno's charge would be "supported by the WHOLE outfit (not PART OF the outfit", and Martin heard him say to his whole column "WE (not SOME OF US) will go down and make a crossing and capture the village".
This evidence reveals Custer's plan and upholds the conclusion that all five of the companies of Custer's column went to Ford B.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Four flags could have meant as little as two companies and Custer's personal retinue"
REPLY : It's very unlikely Custer would move his headquartes with the smallest of the regiment's four (Reno, Benteen, Keogh, Yates) ad hoc battalions.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Martin claimed that Benteen sent him to the pack train in) his Reno Court testimony."
REPLY : In his Graham interview, Martin stated that Benteen did not send him back to the pack train. He said that the transcript misquoted him due to language difficulties.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "(Edgerly's testimony) doesn't confrim Benteen on Martin's precise choice of words ['skedaddeling']...the substance of Martin's bombast remains the same --doing total damage to the idea that Martin saw Custer withdrawing from the river under Indian attack."
REPLY : In the Graham interview, Martin said that when he was with the Benteen column, he wondered if Reno's charge had gone right through the village yet. This is consistent with Edgerly's testimony, that Martin said that Reno had "charged in and killed everybody", but not with Benteen's claim that Martin said the Indians were skiddaddling.
The Graham interview,and Edgerly's testimony, casts grave doubts on the notion that Martin saw Reno retreating. How could Martin have seen Reno retreating when he wondered whether Reno had gone right through he village, and when he said Reno had charged in and killed everybody? This alleged statement that Martin saw Major Reno's column in retreat could well have been placed in error in the transcript because of language problems.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Martin has no information relevant to how Custer came to Ford B."
REPLY : Martin left Custer's column about 600 yards from the river and saw them "galloping down the ravine, the gray horse troop in the middle". How long does it take to gallop 600 yards? At most a couple of minutes.
ANONYMOUS POSTER 8169 : "Inferences that...Custer advanced to Ford B in a united column...are directly challenged by other actual evidence."
REPLY : I haven't heard you give this evidence yet. If you have it, I'd love to hear it. I look foreward to reading it. What is this mysterious evidence that you refer to?
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 26 2004 : 4:47:27 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by ABridgeTooFar
Bridge, and anyone else interested--- since our discussion was starting to focus on the testimony of Curley and Martin, and how to interpret them, I took the liberty of separating the two under the new thread titles "Curley and Ford B" and "Making Sense of Martin". You can see my replies there.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 22 2004 : 7:58:52 PM
|
El Crab, I am late but, nonetheless, here I am. I chose option # 8, Custer decided to pursue the non-combatants. My decision is not based on actions that Custer selected rather, it is based on what he did not do. He did not follow Reno as originally planned, he did not cross Ford "B", he did not wait for Benteen, which was a fatal mistake.
He did not continue to follow Reno in, as he stated, because messengers sent by Reno convinced Custer that the Indians were not "On the Jump" as previously thought but, making a classic Indian stand. A feint to draw the soldiers to the warriors while the women and children escaped.
Custer then rode to the MTV environs and initiated his own feint towards Ford "B" to relieve Reno. There he saw the tail section of the fleeing women and children.
Continuing north, he arrived at Custer Hill and observed his quarry attempting to achieve sanctuary in the ravines and woods located there. Custer descended Cemetary ridge to within striking distance before realizing that he needed more men for the "roundup." He waited a time fbefore the end suddenly erupted. Hey, its just a theory!
|
Edited by - joseph wiggs on June 22 2004 8:01:02 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2004 : 08:57:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
I don't think the "we've caught them napping" can be taken literally. If Custer said it, he may have said it to encourage his battalion. The village didn't have to be quiet, it could have been in disarray. Custer could have been alluding to the fact that the regiment had struck a village by surprise, which would lead me to believe that he knew Reno was engaged and the village was not prepared for it.
Its also possible that Custer saw the village BEFORE Reno's battalion was spotted by the village inhabitants. Either way, his "napping" comment did not necessarily mean he thought the village's population was asleep, only that they were clearly not aware his regiment was so close.
Was it even Martini that said Custer said this? Was he the only one? Perhaps Kanipe or some of the stragglers who found their way back to Reno rather than dying with Custer reported what Custer said.
I think I've pinpointed where the "We've caught them napping" version of Custer's words came from. In his interviews, of course, Martin never remembers Custer speaking in exactly those terms --- it's always "The Indians are asleep", or "sleeping", or something similar. Never anything so racy as the standard version that so many people have put on their sig lines.
I believe it must have been Graham who originated the phrase we all know today. In the article he published in that cavalry magazine in 1923 (and reprinted in "The Custer Myth") he writes in the commentary: "It is impossible to believe, when he rode to the top of the ridge with Martin, as he did shortly after leaving Reno's trail and starting down the river at a gallop, that Custer thought the Indians were 'asleep in their tents,' for Cook must already have told him that they were streaming up the valley to meet Reno. He probably said, 'We've caught them napping' or 'asleep' --- an expression which Martin, then a green Italian, unused to American colloquialisms, interpreted literally." (Pg. 293)
In Graham's "Story of the Little Big Horn," published three years later --- the first book on the subject --- the incident is converted into this: "Sharply the general scanned the valley with ready glasses. The village seemed asleep. Save for a few dogs and ponies, lazy in the sun, a few squaws and romping children were all that could be seen. The camp was lifeless, apparently denuded of fighting men. Abruptly he turned to his companions. 'We've got them,' he exclaimed. 'We've caught them napping. Come on!'" (Pg. 84). Graham's endnote on this section simply directs the reader to his cavalry magazine article.
I think the line of evolution is clear. Martin always remembers the quote as "The Indians are asleep," or a close variant. Graham, knowing his shaky English, is rightly skeptical that Custer's remark has been accurately remembered, and speculates in his magazine article that Custer actually said the more colloquial "We caught them napping". By the time his book is to be published, he is totally convinced, and records the quip as "We've caught them napping" without comment. From then on later writers have copied Graham's "Story".
I want to add that I'm pretty sure Graham is right about Martin interpreting Custer's words too literally. But it's Graham, not Martin, who's responsible for the quote we all know today, and I'm not sure that's readily acknowledged by any of the writers who use it. I remember asking people here about it a while ago and nobody really knew.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 05:59:53 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Anonymous Poster8169: So now we know that Graham was an idiot and not Martin and you are a genius! However, maybe you are just involved in idle speculation you don't really seem to know that much about and are rambling all over the hill as usual!! Go ahead and ask for a bunch of citations and other evidence! You are a racist indian hater!!!
Where I said Graham was an idiot, or Martin, or anything else you assert? Nowhere. I'm impressed, once again, with your milk carton grade reading skills.
I'll note for you, however, that I did provide citations and evidence when I asserted something for which I needed to. If you'd done the same you wouldn't need to be so afraid of me --- that way, at least, you wouldn't be reduced to scurrying around the margins of the board like a wounded rat.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - November 30 2004 : 5:34:02 PM
|
Okay, Warlord. Prove you're not afraid by showing where I said that Graham was an idiot in my post. You said it, and if it wasn't just cowardly BS, you ought to be able to prove it. Unless you're afraid to.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 01 2004 : 8:45:03 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Anonymous Poster8169: You really do not comprehend the argumentation do you? Your uncomprehending posts and manner of argumentation (?) speak for themselves!!!
If you're right that I was making Graham out to be an idiot then it should be easy to prove. You chickened out, Warlord. Go back to thinking thoughts about my nuts, if that's all you're capable of.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 02 2004 : 7:45:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
****: You should be flattered anyone thinks you have a set! But maybe you are deformed like your hero, Hitler!!!
I never heard that one about Hitler, though it doesn't surprise me that you've gobbled up the info. Flattered? No. Creeped out? Yeah, a little. It's always disconcerting when a grown man reveals his pecadillo for imagining what other men's testicles are like, and it isn't helped that you've salivated your post with a number of redundant exclamation points. We all realize you have real enthusiasm for the subject, Warlord. You don't need to show it though.
I'm still waiting for your defense of your claim about me and Graham. Still waiting, in fact, for any reason not to think that you're a cowardly, timorous poseur, who ducks and runs behind a screed of insults whenever somebody challenges you on something substantial.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 03 2004 : 5:56:03 PM
|
Thanks for the encouragement, Warlord, and no, I don't expect I will. I wouldn't have used the word "arrogant" since I don't think it's accurate. I don't consider the bluster in your posts to be anything more than a facade, and "timorous" I think captures you quite accurately.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
MTC: Basic Theories
