|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 29, 2007 7:13:21 GMT -6
Following a trail that could be up to a mile wide and then narrowed to a creek should mean there is a lot of disturbance. Without knowing the conditions of the creek bed I can't address if it would significantly slow down a walking pack train. Hopefully this year I will get a chance to look at it.
One of the reasons we wear chaps is that animals are adapted to walking through thick brush. As far a walking across rocks, we have Malapai formations here that you can not drive across above 1 mph speeds and walking is very difficult. Yet I can trot and gallop my horse across the same terrain. The antelope on Anderson Mesa can travel at speeds approaching 50 mph across the same rock pile terrain.
I think you could reduce dust generation without significantly reducing a walking speed by traveling at a walk that keeps the packtrain together. Which is what they did the closer they got to Reno, they tightened up.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 29, 2007 7:36:48 GMT -6
His remarks from 1908 until he died are irrelevant.
The evidence first supported that there was a messenger, that the messenger was a sargeant, and then McDougall's 1897 statement that Kanipe delivered the message.
The citation in Custer's Luck is 1903 for Kanipe. I am now leaning toward DC's take on anything after RCOI. That also makes McDougall's statement of 1897 irrelevant.
Unless someone can show how McDougall would benefit by lying at RCOI, I can't believe his memory would have gotten better in 1897. Do we assume officer's memories years latter are better than enlisted men?
Was the circumstance of the 1897 statement at the request of Kanipe after refreshing McDougall of his view (Kanipe's) of what he did or was this generated by McDougall out of the clear blue in 1897.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 29, 2007 8:30:20 GMT -6
I'd still like to know when Martin's story changed to include Boston Custer.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Mar 29, 2007 8:31:33 GMT -6
AZ---Your rebuttal, so called, is irrelevant because it challenges facts not placed in evidence. I did not use any statement of Kanipe's to establish that he carried a message to the pack train. The case isn't based on his claims, and, therefore his credibility isn't an issue, and has no bearing on the case. You are intelligent enough to know this.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Mar 29, 2007 8:32:28 GMT -6
Kanipe is not mentioned in RCIO. Lt. Edgerly’s testimony (Nicholls p. 459): Q. How many orders did Captain Benteen receive from General Custer and through whom did they come? A. […] After that a sergeant of C company came to him with reference to the pack train and received his directions and rode back towards Captain McDougall […] Q. Can you give the name of the sergeant of Company C? A. It was either Sergeant Kanipe or Sergeant Hanley, I think the latter. (We all know where was Sergeant Hanley).
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 29, 2007 8:38:26 GMT -6
At the COI I don't think Martini ever stated he saw anybody on his way back to Benteen.
However, I don't think he was asked, either.
So if he wasn't asked he would not mention it. Do we then say anything said afterward was not true if he was not asked about it at the COI?
As Benteen later stated . . . there was much more to be said but the questions were never asked . . . and a good witness never gives more info than asked for.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Mar 29, 2007 11:09:31 GMT -6
Hi AZ Ranger
I do not really follow your purpose in raising some article with which Kanipe was involved that discussed an action (Reno's valley fight) where he was not present. I presume he is merely relaying what others have said to him as he was not there. You could equally argue that any statement of fact that I provide in posts on this board must be in error because I have a different opinion to you in this case where neither of us actually know the absolute truth.
It makes me think that he probably never saw the RCOI transcripts as from those it would be clear that Reno had lost at least the young trooper whose horse bolted into the village. Thus he probably did not know that McDougall and Mathey's testimony was rather confused as to whether he delivered a message or not. Perhaps if he had been aware of the confusion he could have made some attempt to clarify it. I put together a quite reasonable hypothesis in a previous approach indicating how Kanipe could have delivered a message to the front of the train unfortunately we do not have much detail from Kanipe as to what he did. He certainly mentions McDougall but not I think Mathey so we do not know if he claimed to have seen him as well.
What I find surprising is that you are happy to rely on the statement of Mathey, that he received no orders from Gen Custer, Reno or Benteen, to condemn Kanipe and ignore the fact that Mathey contradicts himself 5 answers later when he admits that after all he did get orders via Lt Hare to send two ammunition mules to Reno.
If Mathey's excuse for this omission was that he regarded Lt Hare as somehow not representing Reno then perhaps if Kanipe said he came from Tom Custer then this would be why Mathey failed to mention him!
If you look at McDougall and Mathey's evidence they are not at all consistent with each other about things such as when they halted and why. Plainly they both went through a fairly harrowing experience immediately after this, so perhaps it is not surprising if they made mistakes in their testimony. For Kanipe on the other hand this was the main thing he did in the battle so he is more likely to be right if it is just a question of recollection rather than deliberate falsification.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 29, 2007 21:50:36 GMT -6
DO - I am answering more than just your post in my comments and maybe should have separated them. Others have used statements made by Kanipe and the McDougall letter to support their position. - You do use statements made by Kanipe - Benteen has no personal knowledge that anyone gave Kanipe a message. Kanipe told him that. Without Kanipe telling him that he is a messenger there is no other mention of him by name.
- I believe you made the following post:
Where was it introduced as evidence? I would hardly accept that McDougall's memory 21 years after the event is evidence of anything other than trying to help out someone. What did it hurt to give the poor guy a little more significance. It didn't change what McDougall or the packtrain did and he didn't swear the letter was true. The real confrontation should have taken place with the RCOI transcript and the letter placed in front of McDougall and then ask him which is the truth. Your sworn testimony or the letter? Since we can't do that we are stuck with another LBH dilemma. So sticking to just testimony from RCOI Benteen never testified that Kanipe made the delivery. The only other facts in evidence are that the other officers testified that they did not receive it. In the general discussion on this thread we have to go outside testimony to fill in the blanks for discussion purposes not for legal purposes and for that the veracity of statements can weighed against statements and testimony of others. I chose to believe the officer's since they do not benefit from giving testimony that they did not receive the message. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 29, 2007 22:20:35 GMT -6
You are correct but are taking it out of the context.
McDougall or Mathey who are the officers that were being discussed did not mention Kanipe at RCOI. Your reference does prove that McDougall or Mathey received a message from Kanipe which is what we are discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 30, 2007 5:14:11 GMT -6
Really, I would like to know when Martin's story changed. Let's not always see the same hands.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Mar 30, 2007 6:18:39 GMT -6
I used Benteen's Official report, or the RCOI testimony of Benteen, Mathey, or McDougall to establish a messenger had been sent, not that Kanipe was the messenger. McD's 1897 endorsement establishes that.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Mar 30, 2007 8:52:08 GMT -6
You are correct but are taking it out of the context. AZ, Why should they mention Kanipe by name, if in the first place they were testifying that NO sergeant reached them with orders from Custer? I thought it was the purpose of your post (by including a passive sentence, ‘Kanipe is not mentioned in RCOI’) to stress that no witness in the court knew of Daniel Kanipe. Sorry for misunderstanding you.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 30, 2007 9:38:59 GMT -6
The only thing Benteen knows for sure is he saw Kanipe and the direction he came from and the direction he left. When he wrote of Kanipe's message that information came from Kanipe.
I never used the C word with Kanipe and cautioned against it. I am suspect of his activity. Someone should have saved the written order. Benteen saved that fine work of Cooke. Would have made our discussions boring though if we had all the facts.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 30, 2007 9:40:29 GMT -6
It was my mistake for not clarifying the linkage to the context.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 30, 2007 9:44:36 GMT -6
Kanipe could have told Benteen he was going for the birthday cake and that would have been in Benteen's report.
|
|