| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 24 2008 : 7:38:20 PM
|
Poll Question:
Conversations and written works regarding the Battle of the Little Big Horn are fraught with controversy and ambiguity. Which of the below factors can be credited for creating the major portion of this unsettled, heavily debated enigma?
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2008 : 12:21:49 PM
|
A substantial argument of responsibility could be presented for all of the categories as they have,as the circumstances of the battle itself, acquired an abundance of credible supporters and dissenters throughout the years. I chose the Reno Inquiry. Witnesses gave testimony that ranged from subtle mis-information to inexplicable forgetfulness. For example, in Graham's "The Reno Court of Inquiry" sixteen witnesses testified to "Firing Heard From Down River" described as volleys while positioned on Reno Hill;three men swore they heard no such sounds:
Major Reno - " I heard no firing from down river till after we moved out in that direction and then only a few scattering shots."P221
I do not remember anybody reporting to me that he heard firing on the right. If I had heard this firing as they represented it, I should have known that he (Custer) was engaged while I was on the hill." P
Capt. Ben teen: "The only firing I heard that I did not see, and which came from the direction Custer had gone was the 15 or 20 shots that seemed to come from about the central part of the village, about at the ford "B". I have heard officers disputing about hearing volleys; I heard no volleys."P
Lt. Wallace: Whether their firing could have been heard I don't know. I heard none; though others will testify that they did. I heard scattering shots in the bottom on the left but no heavy firing. It was apparently in the village; it did not sound like fighting." p21
I heard no firing when on the hill from the direction of Custer's field; only some scattering shots to the left. p26"
Churchill: "I heard no firing for about one and a half hours; then heard it down the river. I took it to be volley and spoke of it to some of the men. I heard four or five volleys. it was in the right direction to have come from the Custer battle field. it lasted one and a half to two hours-before the Indians came back on us."p171
Sgt. Culbertson - "Before I went down to the river with Maj. Reno to find Lt. Hodgson's body, I was sitting near Lt. Varnum talking with Lt.Eagerly. We heard firing from down below. At first it was a couple of volleys, very heavy. Lt. Varnum remarked the Gen. Custer was hotly engaged. major Reno came up to us while the firing was going on."P125
Sgt. Davern - Shortly after reaching the top I heard Volley firing from down stream. It was not very distinct, but you could tell it was volley firing."p119
Lt. DeRudio - "Soon after Maj. Reno left the timber firing commenced on the other side of the village. I heard immense volleys. The firing i heard started soon after Maj. Reno reached the hill." p107
Lt. Eagerly - "Shortly after I got on the hill, almost immediately, I heard firing and remarked it-heavy firing, by volleys, down the creek. I heard the firing plainly." P160
Girard - "Ten or fifteen minutes after Reno left the timber I heard firing to the left of where he was. I heard continuous firing clear on down as if there was a general engagement, down to where I after wards went to Gen. Custer's battlefield. And I heard firing to the left of the village; (west)3 or 4 volleys as if there were 50 to 100 guns at a volley." p41
Lt. Godfrey - "After Lt. Hare had returned from going after the packs, we heard firing from below. I heard two very distinct volleys." p178
Lt. Hare - "Also, I heard firing down there just after Benteen came up. My attention was called to it by Capt.. Godfrey. He asked if i heard "heard the volley." I said yes, I heard two distinct volleys." p96
Herenden - "After we had been in there some time, a half hour or less, I heard firing. it began in volleys. I heard a great many volleys. It came from down the stream, from the direction of Custer's Battlefield." p84
Lt. Moylan - "I heard some firing in the direction of the Custer field, about an hour after reaching the hill. the sound was like volley firing." p75
Dr. Porter - "We hadn't been there long till I heard firing down the stream and to the left. Pretty heavy and sharp for a few minutes." p65
Lt. MacDougall - "The firing I heard was to the north, on my right as I went toward the Little Big Horn. it was just two volleys. I told major Reno about it and he said:"captain, I lost your Lieutenant and he is lying down there."p195
In summation, three witnesses heard no volleys while thirteen others did. I believe that Benteen and Reno's forgetfulness was prompted by three years of censure and the burden of fault placed upon their shoulders. This must have been particularly excruciating for Benteen who performed admirably. In 1876, failure to respond to the sound of heavy firing (regardless of the circumstances) would be viewed in an unfavorable light, particularly for the two commanders in charge. Even if the response was virtually impossible or extremely difficult!
The Psychological debilitating results of combat known to today's military was unknown in that era. Combat actions were classified as either an act of cowardice or bravery; nothing in between.
Wallace,an exceptional officer,may have fudged his testimony for the "good" of the service. A possible motive as he was never singled out as performing poorly. Nevertheless, it is such mis-information that has given birth to an innuendo that has become "fact" for some. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on May 25 2008 12:49:55 PM |
  |
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 31 2008 : 3:58:59 PM
|
In support of the above thread I proffer the following:
In the Reno Inquiry Benteen delivered a great deal of testimony regarding the distance between his and Custer's commands brought
about by his orders to "proceed out into a line of bluffs about four or five miles away." He also stated that he was ordered to report back to Custer (ONLY)if he spotted any Indians.
He conveniently forgets to state that he was also ordered to return as soon as possible if nothing was found also. Benteen further states, "When I received my orders from Custer to separate myself from the command, I had no instructions to unite at anytime with Reno or anyone else. There was no plan at all. My orders were "Valley hunting ad infinitum"
Such testimony, if it were true, would go far to make Custer look like a blithering idiot and a conniving sneak excluding a better man out of the battle and glory. This testimony was given under oath.
In reality, the actual distance of the first line of bluffs was 1.3 miles away. The total distance to the last bluff that contained ("the valley") was 3 3/4 miles. The valley he was sent to find was the Little Big Horn Valley and,he knew this.
At that point, Benteen accomplished his mission, to ascertain two things; no Indians were moving south up the valley and no Indian village was observed. Both factors would have assured Custer that the Village was to his front.
In a letter to his wife, several days after the battle he made admission to all of this. This admission was later confirmed by a letter From Lt. Gibson dated August 8, 1908:
"As to my little scout to the left to find the LITTLE BIG HORN VALLEY, I can state definitely that I did find and see it...I saw not a living thing on it and hurried back and reported so to Benteen who then altered his course so as to pick up the main trail."
At the Inquiry, Benteen testified that after "10" miles he simply returned to Custer's trail. Such falsehoods, mis-information, and failure to present facts as they occurred did much to shame a group of men who fell in battle and who deserved so much better from their comrades. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on May 31 2008 4:16:12 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 03 2008 : 6:48:56 PM
|
| I just noticed that we received one vote for "other." Would that voter give his or her reason for doing so? Your valued input will be appreciated! |
|
|
|
JasW
Recruit
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 21 2009 : 4:34:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
I just noticed that we received one vote for "other." Would that voter give his or her reason for doing so? Your valued input will be appreciated!
Simply put...Elizabeth Custer. She was extremely strong willed and spent the rest of her life seeing that her 'Autie' was enobled. Few went dead-on against her...and she outlived them all.
JW~
PS--It wasn't I who cast that 'other' vote (I didn't vote at all.) |
I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct. |
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 25 2009 : 08:47:37 AM
|
The Reno Court of Inquiry--whitewash tho it probably was--sort of takes in a lot of White accounts. The other White accounts are often dismissed by some as "civilain accounts" which are of course deemed worthless. I really do wish we had more observations and accounts from the rank and file enlisted men. The Indian acounts are frequently dismissed as self serving or useless.
So what are we left with? We don't even have any real solid information on how large the Village really was, how many Indian warriors were actually there. Custer's immediate command were all killed, so they can't tell us a thing. The position of bodies and units yeilds to all sorts of speculation as to what Custer was trying to do. Survivors changed and altered stories over the years.
As for Benteen--there was of course a "plan" --it just wasn't a very good one under the circumstances and even there we have all sorts of controversy as to whether or not he was "ordered" to do anything, etc.
Just to note Donovan's excellent book was "featured" at both the Barnes and Noble AND Border's store when I stopped in at both last month. Hope lots of folks who know very little about the battle can get some good information.
|
Edited by - Brent on February 25 2009 08:49:14 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2009 : 07:35:08 AM
|
| RCOI was about Reno's decisions not how the troops implemented. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 28 2009 : 7:52:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Even if the numerous errors have been corrected, Son of the Morning Star is a better read as is Custer's Luck.
The unanticipated and shocking realization that I completely agree with you exceeds the boundaries of my personal belief system. I'm flabbergasted and emulsified! |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - March 03 2009 : 07:36:37 AM
|
| Isn't white testimony and RCOI the same thing? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 2:05:59 PM
|
Joe,
Methinks you missed a point, look carefully again...
quote:
He conveniently forgets to state that he was also ordered to return as soon as possible if nothing was found also. Benteen further states, "When I received my orders from Custer to separate myself from the command, I had no instructions to unite at anytime with Reno or anyone else. There was no plan at all. My orders were "Valley hunting ad infinitum"
|
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 6:42:02 PM
|
I stand emulsified and corrected! |
Edited by - joe wiggs on November 28 2009 6:42:46 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - November 29 2009 : 10:02:44 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Joe,
Methinks you missed a point, look carefully again...
quote:
He conveniently forgets to state that he was also ordered to return as soon as possible if nothing was found also. Benteen further states, "When I received my orders from Custer to separate myself from the command, I had no instructions to unite at anytime with Reno or anyone else. There was no plan at all. My orders were "Valley hunting ad infinitum"
It appears to me that first is not a plan for where does it state how many empty valleys must you see before you can return hence the exaggerated and example of frustration in testimony on Benteen's part in regards to his ordered scout to the left. Did Benteen return after the first drainage with no Indians, the second or third? Exactly when do execute a return.
There were no instructions to unite with Reno and this is important because it is the Reno court of inquiry. It is not the 7th cavalry court of inquiry. Benteen could not have know that Reno was sent as the advance moving to contact by Custer. Benteen would know as most military people would know that a court of inquiry wold be looking for information that would effect the subject of the court of inquiry. Reno in this case and therefore orders to support Reno would be of significance to what Reno would have based his decisions upon. Benteen is merely stating the obvious that no one could know when Benteen would return based upon his original orders.
There is basic military functions such as you return after a mission is completed and you can also find that question and answer in the RCOI.
I believe part of the problem is what defines a plan as opposed to maneuvers or tactics. Clearly there was ordered maneuvers and all testified to those. I believe there was to much recon in force to have an actual plan which is what all the surviving commanders testified too. This a military proceeding and terms understood by them may be different from our current thinking.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 24 2011 : 10:09:15 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
RCOI was about Reno's decisions not how the troops implemented.
I must disagree. All aspects of the battle were discussed to include troop movement/implementation. I'm sure if you would review your sources that you will find that your statement is inaccurate. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 01 2011 : 8:30:06 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
RCOI was about Reno's decisions not how the troops implemented.
I must disagree. All aspects of the battle were discussed to include troop movement/implementation. I'm sure if you would review your sources that you will find that your statement is inaccurate.
No need to Joe it was Reno Court of Inquiry not anyone else's. The court officers were looking at his decisions and his alone. The other troops did not have an attorney there to defend them only Reno. There was lots of testimony about the events but the court had one focus and that was Major Reno and his decisions.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 20 2011 : 6:51:36 PM
|
Unfortunately, you seem to be stuck in a state of implausible denial. To imply that facts of the battle pertinent to establishing a reasonable explanation of Reno's actions (Why else was he there) were not discussed because ("It was Reno's Court of Inquiry and not any body's else")is mystifying.
Yet, you go on to say that there was "Lots of testimony about the events" but the board only focused on Reno's action brings about a corundum: How does one reach a conclusion concerning Reno's culpability or non-culpability without discussing testimony of the other participants?  |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Mis-Information or lies?
