|
Post by mwkeogh on Sept 9, 2007 21:32:41 GMT -6
keogh: See my post on Who's On First, and my suggestion to douglas about Reno's positions in the valley. If you have not read Vaughn's work, you might give it a shot. Gordie, take my hand, I'm a stranger in Paradise - all lost in a wonderland...................................... Thanks for the suggestion, Gordie, but I don't have a copy of Vaughn's work (nor Dustin's for that matter) so it won't help me out at the moment. lol....but I would like to hear some of your own views on the matter if and when you get the time to post them.
|
|
|
Post by erkki on Sept 10, 2007 10:44:14 GMT -6
I for one wouldn’t trust Wallace’s time-clocks any more than those of his fellow officers. Let’s not forget that he changed not once, but twice, one of the time-clocks in his official itinerary. Which one? Source? Note that I am in agreement with you, but this changed time-clock is a new one on me. I am always willing--nay, eager--to learn more.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 10, 2007 10:58:36 GMT -6
keogh:
You must get the Vaughn book. His research covers the same ground and was conducted 30 years previously [1964]. I tend to accept it, and agree with him that there were two skirmish lines in the valley, the first formed out in the open when the order to dismount and fight on foot was given, and which advanced some distance toward the camps, and then the second line at the edge of the timber. There might have been a third line facing the river and the camps to protect the led horses, but Vaughn could find no evidence whatsoever to confirm this. He did for the other two.
There would have been little firing from the line first formed on dismounting, perhaps a round or two per trooper. The heavier firing took place after the line had advanced to its final position, which Vaughn marks as running southwest from near the old Garryowen store, near the Garryowen Bend, with its right resting east of the RR tracks [the timber has been greatly reduced over the years, by construction of the RR and the Hwy and else]. He does not pretend to know precisely where the line first dismounted, nor do I.
He locates the second line at the edge of the drop from the prairie to the bottoms, which would have been timbered then [check out the photos in Where Custer Fell, which are not wonderful but are useful for showing the differences]. If you consult the maps of Dustin and Vaughn, you will see, I think, that the line did not revolve neatly from the valley to the timber position, and indeed most anecdotal; evidence does not claim that it did. It was hardly a seamless transference, and the positions show that it could not have been done by simply hinging the right and swinging the left.
The postitions thusly established by Vaughn are marked by cartridge cases along the lines, so that they not only fit the testimonies but also the artifactual evidence. Vaughn also discusses Reno's line(s) of retreat to the bluffs. I think I mentioned elsewhere that there was more than one crossing, and more than one route to these crossings, which information I got from anecdotal evidence and time on the ground, and Vaughn confirms that basic thought, although he and I might differ somewhat on the details of exactly what the routes were and where the troops crossed [as an aside, some warrior accounts state that only three or four soldiers made it out of the river to the other side, so obviously they were not at the main crossing].
Gordie, that's a very good question, and I have no intention of answering it, but let me say..................
PS One who chooses to look at these sources will note that there was no ravine or draw from which hundreds of Indians poured forth. My guess is that Reno thought that the Indians advancing toward him were coming out of a draw, when in fact they were crossing a loop of the river.
Dustin is not really good for much, being totally biased in his selection of evidence; but his research of the positions in the valley was actually done on the spot during his only visit to the battlefield, and a comparison of his maps with those of Vaughn and Pitsch/Smalley is illuminating.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 10, 2007 15:19:44 GMT -6
So, how many cases does Vaughn consider enough to identify a line as opposed to other alternatives? I've heard the lines described as being right around the Garry Owen grocery.
I suppose I shouldn't be too picky, but happy that actual evidence of salting the field has been obtained, done by a Superintendent from the Ft. Custer range. By Scout or Frank, can't recall, but here on the board. If then and there, why not here?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 10, 2007 16:43:00 GMT -6
Re the salting: wouldn't most people have wanted their souvenirs to come from the Custer's Last Stand area? Little benefit in doing it in the Reno area, I'd have thought. Yes, it might have been a great picnic spot -- but for any serious goodies they'd surely go to LSH.
Maybe we need to see some diaries from tourists, to establish just what kind of souvenirs people valued.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 10, 2007 20:22:45 GMT -6
The point being, if a G*D* SUPERINTENDENT felt okay doing it, lord knows what else transpired by lesser lights. Of course, tourists would want it from LSH. But with the train stopping, why not let them load up down there? No clue, myself, but this certainly deflates surety about artifacts.
Granted, the assumption might be that all the firing at Ft. Custer was done with the new ammo and not to be confused with Custer's guys. Maybe. But I'd doubt it. Wouldn't target practice burn up old ammo first? Who could use the range? And who did after the fort went away?
People assume that anything not Springfield and date correct MUST be Indian and used in the fight. Dubious.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 10, 2007 21:20:19 GMT -6
dc:
The lines were right around the Garryowen grocery [general] store, which was located at/near the Garryowen bend or loop or whatever. Testimony and other anecdotal evidence puts them there. The artifactual evidence confirms those locations, which despite their proximity to the RR depot, never seemed to be particularly popular with the in crowd, to the extent that for years between the 1886 reunion and the 1926 festivities, nobody had much of an idea where Reno had fought, and seemed to care even less. THE HILL was always the focal point, and still is.
Were I inclined to salt some souvenirs for some visiting bigshots, I would not put them three or four hundred yards out of their way, and I would be certain that they found them. Since they would all naturally gravitate to THE HILL, that's where I'd put them, and I'd have the guide or whoever say: "Oh look, Mister or Missus Muckey-Muck, what's that sticking out of the ground over there. Let's go see." I don't think I'd be saying: "Let's all load up the buggies/wagons and bounce a couple of miles over to the what-will-become Luce Ridge and see what we can find." I'd make sure that you found what I had planted.
In a sense, the fact that artifacts can be found is almost evidence that they were not salted. The people who farmed the Reno fight site have discovered many artifacts, not limited to cartridges/cases over the years.
Gordie, so on and on it will always be true love, true love.........................................................
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 10, 2007 21:48:14 GMT -6
"In a sense....." If the practice was limited to the Super and hadn't continued to quite recently. It could have, easily enough. I'm saying if the feeling was it was okay for the Super to be guilty of fraud, who else felt okay doing the same? For giggles or for deception of for possible value added to land? If I were Sioux, Cheyenne, or Crow and the thought of deceiving an avaricious pro-Custer fanatic by placing a series of cases fired long ago by Gramp's carbine opened before me, I'd be sorely tempted. Especially if Gramps found the carbine years after the battle.
Along with coming clean about salting, there would need to be some Come to Jesus about riding and shooting on the Hill and environs long after the battle. The same guys that told me about the salting years back also told me that. They may themselves have been the guilty parties, but surely there were more.
Well, those lines aren't Mr. Pitsch's lines, which are south. Let's be serious: two frontage roads, a major highway, and a railroad line go through the alleged locations of Reno's skirmish lines. And we're still sure there's no reason for serious doubt that the - to this point - unknown numbers of found cases aren't, eh, dubious as to usage by Reno? It could be worse, it could be an airport landing strip as well.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Sept 11, 2007 1:11:16 GMT -6
Thanks Gordie for your response and explanations regarding the valley fight. I will look for a copy of Vaughn's book and see how his research matches up with Jason's. It makes perfect sense that the timber area extended for a greater length out into what is now open prairie, but I am still amazed that Reno allowed such a distance between his (furthest) dismounted skirmish line and his led horses back in the timber. He took a terrible chance in doing this and might well have lost his horses had the hostiles gotten a large enough force in his rear.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 11, 2007 1:22:48 GMT -6
The point being, if a G*D* SUPERINTENDENT felt okay doing it, lord knows what else transpired by lesser lights. Of course, tourists would want it from LSH. But with the train stopping, why not let them load up down there? No clue, myself, but this certainly deflates surety about artifacts. Granted, the assumption might be that all the firing at Ft. Custer was done with the new ammo and not to be confused with Custer's guys. Maybe. But I'd doubt it. Wouldn't target practice burn up old ammo first? Who could use the range? And who did after the fort went away? People assume that anything not Springfield and date correct MUST be Indian and used in the fight. Dubious. DC, HFS, you are basing your argument on a hypothesis. It is known that one Superintendent salted the Last Stand area; now you are extrapolating a fact to prove an argument that the entire field was salted. In your words, "Prove it!!" Actually, those were not your exact words, but, if you can stretch, I can stretch. And you obviously have not read Vaughn's book which details the Reno skirmish lines in one chapter. Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 11, 2007 2:36:34 GMT -6
I never once claimed to have read Vaughn's book. It's unlikely I ever will. I did base my point upon Godfrey's map in Custer's Luck, which shows the lines about where Harpskiddie says. As the second most popular book on the battle, if that map and those lines are incorrect, there's been a lack of due diligence in exposing it.
Regarding the salting, I'm not claiming anything except that I'd been told the field had been salted, I'd repeated that for years on this and other forums to memorable silence absent the strangled entertainment of conceivable possibility, and now that someone has revealed it in print, the silence continues. I don't claim the entire field was salted. I do claim that it easily could have been.
This, because there are an awful lot of cases that could not have been remotely connected to the battle. There's only two ways they could have gotten there: salting or firing on the field unless we envision religious processions across the field on the way to the Convenient Case Burying Ground and some got spilled. A lot.
Further, I point again to the highly unlikely scenario of strenuous sorting before salting and disallowing any cases that would leave an incorrect impression, since a burning love of Truth and Historic Accuracy clearly flamed in an Army and government that provided three highly respectful burials before even the maggots complained and they plowed everything into a common grave, scattered markers about because 1.) they forgot the 'other' battlefield, and 2.) areas of ripe soil engendered by squittering cows begged for double marble, and assured everyone that nothing unpleasant remained above ground. Nothing happened here folks. Move along.
I claim there is reason to suspect that cases manufactured before the battle were left there for reasons just mentioned and/or by enthused Sioux or Cheyenne or Crow celebrating or practicing or desecrating, and this not within the two or three hours of a memorable Afternoon Activity. History suggests it would be highly unlikely that did NOT occur.
Which is to say, there'd better be one hell of a lot of cases age and manufacture appropriate in a clear line to raise anyone's eyebrows.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 15, 2007 10:15:56 GMT -6
If there were no targets to fire at while advancing how much firing should they have done at the first line?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 15, 2007 10:53:07 GMT -6
Gordie
What is the title of Vaughn's book?
Thanks Steve
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Sept 15, 2007 14:51:42 GMT -6
Steve: Indian Fights - New Facts On Seven Encounters by J.W. Vaughn, University of Oklahoma Press, 1966. You can probably find used copies fairly easily. I buy most of my new books through Clayton Thompson, who gives terrific service, some discounts and has most everything, since he mostly drop ships from the publisher. If you're looking for a bookseller who has a super selection - very heavy on military history, not just the Indian Wars, you could do a lot worse than visiting his site: www.the historymall.com. I do not get a finder's fee for referrals, and I'm probably lost among his hundreds of customers, anyway. Best, Gordie, watch your mail for an item of possible importance............................................
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Sept 16, 2007 2:26:05 GMT -6
If there were no targets to fire at while advancing how much firing should they have done at the first line? You would have to ask Reno and his officers for the answer to this one. I would imagine that much would depend on whether or not the enemy was advancing against you or retreating from you at the time. A number of sources claimed that the hostiles remained for the most part between 800 to 1000 yards away when the line was first formed.....well out of effective carbine range. I suppose its possible that a lot of the firing was just for effect, perhaps with the intention of intimidating the hostiles into keeping a safe distance while still (technically) fulfilling their mission to attack.
|
|