|
Post by blaque on Apr 12, 2007 9:41:33 GMT -6
Returning to the main theme of this thread, I’ve just come across a tidbit of information in support of a direct Custer order to the packs, likely carried by Kanipe. It is a confusing but anyway interesting statement from Private DeVoto. As per his letter to Camp (October 1, 1917) on June 25 he was leading a B company mule, and after passing “a tepee with a dead Indian in it […] We next met a soldier from Custer’s command. Custer had sent him with a message to Major Reno (?). It seems the fight had not yet started when Custer sent him, as he said nothing about it.” (Hardorff’s “Indian Views…”, p. 205).
No stripes here, but it’s quite evident that he was not referring to the other possible candidate, Martini, because the meeting location fits with the one given by Kanipe, and Kanipe did not see the commencement of the action, unlike Martini. And it’s hard to believe that, were Kanipe an skulker, he would be deliberately focussing the attention of everyone in his way (including the Senior Captain and third in command of the Rgt.) by calling out to them false orders from Custer. He would have been as discrete as Brennan, Fitzgerald and perhaps a good number of others –in my opinion that is what common sense would dictate.
P.S.: This post about DeVoto's vague recollection should be preceded by Gordie’s wise remark ‘for what it's worth –nothing to those who already have made up their minds’.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 12, 2007 10:23:05 GMT -6
I would still beware of the "we heard, did, felt...." as opposed to "I heard, did, felt...." It's the slow melding of individual stories together. Could be true, of course, but the Reno error and the late date, as you mention, make it shaky.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 13, 2007 13:30:11 GMT -6
No stripes here, but it’s quite evident that he was not referring to the other possible candidate, Martini, because the meeting location fits with the one given by Kanipe, and Kanipe did not see the commencement of the action, unlike Martini. And it’s hard to believe that, were Kanipe an skulker, he would be deliberately focussing the attention of everyone in his way (including the Senior Captain and third in command of the Rgt.) by calling out to them false orders from Custer. He would have been as discrete as Brennan, Fitzgerald and perhaps a good number of others –in my opinion that is what common sense would dictate. That is a very good point. Against Kanipe, one might say that he said this afterwards to gain public attention to himself, maybe even cover up his own shame. For Kanipe, it would behoove those deliberately perpetrating a cover up for Reno to ignore Kanipe, and disparage him in any way. Hence in testimony they would tend to ignore him. Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 13, 2007 17:47:55 GMT -6
That would depend on what he heard before he left.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 14, 2007 5:20:37 GMT -6
Hi Blaque
I find it hard to use your latest find. Either deVoto is quite confused (it was 40 years after the battle when he wrote this) and the incident he is thinking of was Kanipe with his standard message for McDougall story and deVoto is misremembering who the message was for. Alternatively it was some other straggler or genuine messenger for Reno (unlikely) or Kanipe really was a malingerer and had forgotten what story he was telling or had changed it because he did not want to actually deliver his fake message to McDougall in case he got sent back to Custer again.
My conclusion at the present is that it was the first option and deVoto is misrembering.
Unfortunately if it is the first option that would not really get us any further forward as we already know Kanipe claimed he had a message we just do not know for sure that he was a genuine messenger.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Apr 14, 2007 18:04:05 GMT -6
One more time. The case for a messenger, and that Kanipe was that messenger, does not rest in the slightest on anything Kanipe is reported to have said. Erase everything Kanipe said, and the evidence is still there.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 15, 2007 9:14:46 GMT -6
And it’s hard to believe that, were Kanipe an skulker, he would be deliberately focussing the attention of everyone in his way (including the Senior Captain and third in command of the Rgt.) by calling out to them false orders from Custer.
For the sake of argument assume he was a skulker. What else could he do. Tell Benteen I am going for a joy ride. He would have to give some explanation. The fact that he ran in to Benteen occurred because he rode in front of his battalion. He had to say something.
Independent facts are not if they depend on hearsay. Benteen writes of Kanipe in a report is evidence that he saw Kanipe which is not in question. Benteen writing what Kanipe told him is not evidence of Kanipe's reason for being there when he met up with Benteen.
He could not expect to run into Benteen first.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 15, 2007 9:16:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Apr 17, 2007 12:01:54 GMT -6
Further to the “brother-s” debate, and just to mess things a little bit more, the following comes from my copy of the RCOI proceedings, p. 398 (R. Nicholls edition, 1996):
Q. Who was with Gen. Custer at that time on the hill? A. His brother and his nephew.
Apparently, the fatal “s” only exists in the Graham 1951 transcript (the one available online). As Nicholls insists in his Introduction that –other than punctuation and additions in brackets– “no changes were made that would alter the meaning or accuracy of the testimony by any witness”, we must conclude that either he or Graham did commit an error. I suppose the only way to clear this up would be to consult the original records in the National Archives in Washington.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 17, 2007 12:05:09 GMT -6
Ah-ha!
Drat those typos! That could explain a lot about what everyone said. Or was it a conspiracy by the transcriber to taint the proceedings?
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Apr 17, 2007 17:59:16 GMT -6
Blaque, What document did Nichols use in preparing his version? Quite often I've noticed RCOI quotes that source Nichols, but are in conflict with the transcript as prepared by Graham, including one difference I consider so egregious as to constitute proof the author is aware his evidence does not support his theories, unless the evidence is doctored.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Apr 17, 2007 18:12:56 GMT -6
What Benteen wrote in his official report must be evaluated in the context of the entire report. He does not consider the messages from Custer he received via Voss and Sharrow to be important, for he does not mention them. This is almost certainly because these did not alter the orders he had previously received, and which are explained in his report.
But the messenger to the pack train did change orders. I'm sure, AZ, that you have often written reports that contained items you were not absolutely sure of because you didn't have positive knowledge. In these circumstances you consult the person involved to determine if such a thing occurred.
Benteen's statement is not in the least equivocal. "About a mile further on [past the burning lodge] I met a sergeant of the regiment with orders from Lieutenant-Colonel Custer to the officer in charges of the rear-guard and train to bring it to the front with as great rapidity as was possible."
To challenge the literal meaning and truth of these words you must demonstrate either Benteen was a liar, or he was incompetent. I believe neither can be done.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Apr 18, 2007 4:56:57 GMT -6
Blaque, What document did Nichols use in preparing his version? Quite often I've noticed RCOI quotes that source Nichols, but are in conflict with the transcript as prepared by Graham, including one difference I consider so egregious as to constitute proof the author is aware his evidence does not support his theories, unless the evidence is doctored.DO, I’m quoting from the Preface: “This volume contains the official version of the Court of Inquiry and is a verbatim copy of the original records now in the National Archives, Washington, DC.” It is possible, of course, that Nicholls considered the “s” a typographical error and erased it. But in that case I think he would have added an explanatory footnote –he is a veteran author and expert on LBH history, and must be aware of the implications of that supression. I am intrigued by that "egregious difference". Would you point it to us?
|
|