|
Post by blaque on Mar 30, 2007 12:55:29 GMT -6
Really, I would like to know when Martin's story changed. Let's not always see the same hands. Martin’s account was composed by Graham in 1922, and published after the trumpeter’s death. He told Graham about his meeting with Boston, just as he did it to Camp on 1908, and also to Private Taylor on 1909. Prior to 1908, I don’t know if an account of Martin’s recollections was ever published. But his testimony at the RCOI, as DO says, should not be considered as Martin’s first full version of the events: he was just a “dull-witted” private soldier replying as well as he could to the questions of a military court in a language he did not master. I mean, he no doubt told the court many details about his mission, but not necessarily every recollection he had in his mind. The court did not ask him to do so; Camp and Graham did it.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 30, 2007 13:48:21 GMT -6
He said the brother -s were on the hill with Custer. He's placed Boston there. Once he alters that, Boston is met enroute. Then, he adds that Boston, and not Benteen who appeared in the role earlier, told him about his wounded horse. Then, suddenly, Custer was under attack when he left. This is exaggeration, probably viewed as harmless as it probably is, at work.
I think Graham gullible and Camp, or at least the generally accepted interpretations of Camp's interviews (and who may have misunderstood his own sloppy notes), unreliable. He claimed he'd interviewed Edgerly for seven hours, and had never met him.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Mar 30, 2007 17:06:49 GMT -6
blaque, are you quoting me? I don't recall saying this. My position on Martini has been that whatever he said to Camp and Graham is useless unless it is a logical extension of his testimony at the RCOI, or it can be corroborated by disinterested contemporary sources. I believe his testimony under direct examination to be quite valuable, even if stilted because of language difficulties. Gilbert's intent on cross was nothing more than confusing Martini so he could be portrayed a dunce.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 31, 2007 1:24:58 GMT -6
Hi d o harris
Surely it is during the direct examination by the Recorder that Martini goes completely astray with his fictional or misunderstood account of going back to the pack train which in later life he admits he did not do.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2007 8:03:16 GMT -6
Later in life he said he hadn't done it. Doesn't mean he did not. His increasingly detailed and melodramatic details as he aged do not suggest he grew more accurate or truthful as he aged.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Mar 31, 2007 10:45:28 GMT -6
blaque, are you quoting me? I don't recall saying this. DO, Sorry indeed. I was referring to CH's remark on Martini in post #125. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Mar 31, 2007 13:05:59 GMT -6
Mike---take Martini's testimony and compare his decriptions of terrain and distance to the 1891 USGS topographical map and it will be seen he was a least as accurate and reliable as many of the officers. Examine his testimony, including his map placement, with the crude map Benteen drew and one gets a very clear idea of the position from which Custer viewed the village, and the route Custer followed to the LBH becomes clear.
That he became confused is clear. That he deliberately misstated a fact is not clear. Eliminate everything he stated after he delivered the message to Benteen and we still have the evidence above. Most often, Martini comes under attack from those dedicated to a particular version of events, and Martini's testimony must be overcome. For example, it repudiates the Gall/Godfrey theories/fables, and, of course, it undermines much of what he said in later years, when, perhaps, he had knowledge of the theories of those stalwarts.
He may have gone to the pack train, and forgot in later years. IF his horse had been wounded, and he required a remount, the train was the only place to get one. I do believe Martini, just as Kanipe, having played a larger than average role in events, tended to elaborate his participation or witness.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 31, 2007 14:11:05 GMT -6
Martini could have meant Tom Custer, Autie Reed, and Yates. The first two blood relations, and Yates a "brother"-in-law. Quite possible Martini thought they were all "brothers".
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2007 14:37:04 GMT -6
Unlikely, because relationships were more important back then and discussed, and it's highly unlikely he'd mess that up (a no doubt big topic in a small group), and in any case he would supposedly meet Boston, who'd then tell him his horse was wounded and be informed by Martini of the General's position if somehow the trail and the noise of 200 men and horses wasn't sufficient. If he'd met Boston and told this tale pre-COI, I seriously doubt that tidbit would have remained unmentioned by him OR Lee.
Benteen said he told him his horse was wounded and he hadn't known it, so that's a fib of Martin's as there is no benefit to Benteen to lie about that.
Brothers in law share the same beloved status everywhere and it's not likely he'd call them brothers. Custer would not, absent Shakespearean bombast. In any case, Calhoun was the BIL.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Mar 31, 2007 17:12:34 GMT -6
Boston was seen passing Benteen's command at the morass by Edgerly, so if Martin didn't run into him, he probably should have [it is quite possible to pass another rider close by on the high ground without seeing him, depending which track each is taking].
For all we know Martin may have said "others" and not brothers, and the stenographer [or reporters] got it wrong. Martin also said, somewhere, that he got his fresh horse from his own command [Casey Stengel].
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2007 18:42:09 GMT -6
How likely is it, after the testimony was all reviewed, that the exciting news clip of a separate meeting with Boston is omitted?
And yes, he could have said "others." Except "his others and his nephew" would elicit comment, making no sense, which probably eliminates it as a possibility.
WHEN did Edgerly say Boston passed them, at what gait? It's not a huge difference in time, since it's only about a mile or less from where Martin said he left to where he would have met Boston. But it removes all the assumptions about what Boston would/could have told Custer and the ambush and a lot of detritus that isn't willingly going to be disposed of.
I'd think the 'best evidence' is what was testimony, with not a single remark about how odd Martin didn't mention Boston, and Lee not jumping on it as evidence that could be used against Reno, or spun that way. And nobody recalls Martin mentioning it previous to the century's turn. In aggregate, how can ANYone believe it. Even a Canadian, ey?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 31, 2007 20:07:42 GMT -6
Re "brothers": in Boots and Saddles, Libbie consistently refers to Maggie Calhoun as her "sister" -- no "-in-law" added at any point. Referring to, say, Calhoun as Custer's brother wouldn't require Martini to "mess it up" or misunderstand the relationship; he'd simply be using the parlance of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 31, 2007 20:23:30 GMT -6
I'm not aware Elizabeth Custer, whatever her qualities, speaks for the parlance of the day, but rather for her own relationships. Mrs. Calhoun was close as a sister to Mrs. Custer, or at least so Mrs. Custer positions it after the battle in her books when they actually shared so much, grief foremost. At least, till Margaret remarried.
I'm not inclined to grant that to Martini, viewing his General, his General's brothers, and another high ranker. It takes a believing mind to think he'd describe them so.
In any case, we should start with what was said: "...his brothers." Nobody corrected him. Nobody mentioned it. And, we still await evidence his meeting with Boston appeared to his recollection before 1900, an issue I think defies rational exception. Or, I guess 1909. That's a huge gift of faith, wouldn't you think? We know he changed the story quite a bit, getting more detailed.
It's been repeated so much without sufficient cynicism. Humbly, I leap into the breach. He didn't meet Boston en route. Perhaps for the same reason Kanipe didn't either. Perhaps for the same reason the scouts didn't either. Perhaps not.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Mar 31, 2007 23:32:46 GMT -6
I'm not saying that I believe Martin. If Boston passed Benteen at the morass, as Edgerly said he did [and possibly others as well], and was at Sharpshooter Ridge, overlooking MTC with his brothers when Martin left, what was Benteen doing in the meanwhile?
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 1, 2007 2:54:20 GMT -6
I think that the way the court managed to misinterpret a whole set of Martini's evidence including no less than 12 questions about returning to the train makes wondering whether he used a singular or plural word for brothers rather akin to worrying how many angels can ballance on the head of a pin.
I have to regard Martini's evidence as useful when it is obviously consistent with the terrain, location or people or other testimony but otherwise questionable.
We know from McDougall that Boston returned to the train and talked to him when he came back to change his horse.
The train set off 20 minutes later than Custer and McDougall was at the back. The train straggled severely (see Mathey's evidence) thus Boston's round trip to see McDougall must have been a substantial one. If he felt the need to change his first horse it must have been in a less than perfect state. If you look at the timelines involved it is very difficult to create a scenario where Boston has rejoined GAC in Cedar Coulee around 3.20pm.
Regards
Mike
|
|