Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Oct 21, 2023 16:23:59 GMT -6
For anyone still attached to this thread, I have a question about the note itself. There's the original "Come On" message written in haste by W.W. Cooke, and above it is the message repeated in different handwriting. In reading Glen Swanson's book, GAC His Life and Times, page 81, is a photo of the personal effects of Benteen, among which is a book by Goldin about LBH. In the margin is the Come On note, written by Benteen, clearly in the same handwriting that is found on the original battlefield note. This means that Benteen wrote on the original battlefield note, above the message scribbled by Cooke. But when and why? The National Park Service gives a cropped version of the way the note looks in real life, offering that this particular part of the note was written by Cooke, which is incorrect. Here's their photo of the note.
I have attached a photo of the Swanson book, page 81. If you have it go take a look. Has this already been discussed somewhere? If so I can't find it. Jenny
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Oct 24, 2023 13:44:09 GMT -6
"Benteen had presented it to a friend, a certain Captain Price of Philadelphia. Apparently he told no one about it, for Godfrey also believed the paper destroyed by fire.... ..but the unmistakable penmanship of Benteen himself, once seen, never forgotten, attests its genuineness in the "translation" made for his friend Price's benefit, and which he inscribed above its pencilled words." www.astonisher.com/archives/museum/frederick_benteen_little_big_horn.html
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Oct 24, 2023 15:22:33 GMT -6
Thanks - I just discovered Bruce Brown's story the other day after posting this. I'd always wondered why the NPS doesn't explain the patently different handwriting and duplication of message on this historic piece of paper.
Jenny
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 28, 2023 12:37:06 GMT -6
I'll just add that Benteen's copied text, indicates that some confusion existed in his mind as to how the writing could be interpretted.
A discussion i've had with a researcher who specialises in Cooke, and who feels the name should be spelt 'Cook'; believes the 'ps' part of the message (last line) reads '&' bring pacs rather than 'ps bring pacs'. It seems that private letters he has seen, written by Cooke. use the ampersand figure. That is therefore a reasonable conclusion, given his experience. My point though, is that Benteen understood that different interpretations were possible and he was not wrong.
I have one. It is based in the reality of known events, and the premise (because it is a matter of argument) that Custer intended Benteen to go across Ford A, to Reno's fight. That is where Benteen went until he saw Reno retreating.
Given the intention for Benteen to support Reno quickly, then the last line of Cooke's writing says: 'B bring pacs'. That is, Company B come on with Mathey and the packtrain. It's perfectly reasonable deduction but a can of worms which brings argument. When Custer sent Martin to find Benteen, Custer's intention was to cross the river and capture the village. A logical conclusion is for Bentten to Ford A, and McDougall to shepherd Mathey and the packtrains in.
Regards.
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Oct 30, 2023 17:07:03 GMT -6
I wonder. Custer's general intention was (obviously) to ride to victory but I doubt he had a plan for anyone except himself, and even then he was making it up as he went. For all he knew Reno 's position had changed. He had no idea where the pack train was, nor did he know where Benteen was exactly. He sent the note, we presume, but was it a worried note or just information? Maybe Custer galloped ahead and Cook(e) thought that was nuts and sent the note back on his own. We will never know. If there was panic perhaps it was Cooke's?
HR - I think this is an interesting interpretation. I never thought Benteen was confused, but was copying the note word-for-word in case it completely fell apart, which it was starting to do.
J
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 30, 2023 19:33:43 GMT -6
I'm not sure of the timing for Benteen enlightening the message note with this interpretation, which I assume was for the benefit of the friend he sent it to. It's an odd thing to do. I don't don't doubt that Benteen was aware of the potential for scape-goats being created in the aftermath of disaster. Terry was held at fault in many quarters and his brother in law maintained a lifelong defence of AHT's reputation. As much for his wife as Terry himself. That more than anything else, from Patterson Hughes, was it the root of Custer's wife's angst and defence of GAC. It all blew up again at Terry's death, and then the 20the anniversary, and then 1906, and in between at turn of century PH got one over on N.A. Miles with this version of the battle. I'm a neutral in this but Patterson Hughes deserves equal credit alongside EBC for the ongoing feuds. It wasn't just her but those with their own family agendas who were flying under the storm cloud.
Benteen understood the potential for a personal and career disaster with the loss of Custer. He understood the peacock mentality and the J.J. Reynolds court-martial by Crook for the St. Patrick's Day fight at Powder River, was in the minds of all seniors in the fields. It was the worst thing which Crook could have done, given that JJR was not quite a buffoon and get the job done minus a few ponies on the coldest days in Montana, in memory - ever. Total freak weather.
It's a huge aspect of the post battle and pretty mush long forgotten but Patterson Hughes put in one hell of an innings for Terry and trampled Custer's wife in this wake. He was quite a soldier and completely influenced W.A. Graham. That is even less well known.
Right i'm back off up the bluffs, its getting windy up there so i'all need to huff and puffenstuff.
Regards and long live your brush strokes.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Oct 31, 2023 5:04:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 31, 2023 12:50:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Oct 31, 2023 13:11:46 GMT -6
I saw that - interesting take. but no. A few B b on the note already. Dont look like that is one of them.
|
|