|
Post by ltreilly on Dec 7, 2007 14:04:17 GMT -6
Discovering that Capt. French has been buried a stone's throw from me without me knowing it has got me thinking about his court-martial. Any thoughts about him potentially being given unfair treatment, as John M. Carroll for one suggested? A few questions that seem pertinent: Was French's sentence unduly harsh or did the circumstances merit it? Was not his sentence commutted to suspension? Does this strike down the railroading theory or were the designs to keep him from testifying accomplished by then? If he was railroaded, then why did he wind up resigning? (Does this mean he actually had an honorable discharge?) Was there a legitimate legal reason that he was not allowed to testify due to his pending court-martial (while Reno's legal troubles did not keep him out of the investigation)?
Whew-that's enough questions for now. Just wanted to pick the brains of the folks here (couldn't find a detailed discussion of this on the boards, although I very likely missed one).
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 7, 2007 16:15:21 GMT -6
ltreilly--
Here is what is in my notes on French, who, to me, was one of the more fascinating characters in the whole shebang. Don't ask me why I think that, but he has always intrigued me.
CPT Thomas H. French (nickname among EM, “Tucker”)—b. Baltimore, MD, 4Mar43; d. Planter’s House, Leavenworth, KS, 27Mar82. DOR: 26Mar68; 5th-ranking CPT on campaign. M Company C.O. Along with LT Cooke, considered best shot in regiment. His horse had 4 white stockings. Willert wrote the horse was a gray and quoted 1SG Ryan, saying the animal was “the best buffalo horse in the command.” [LBH Diary, p. 402] This brings into question French’s claim of being the “bravest” soldier mentioned in the Red Horse story (see below). The horse was shot in the head while on Reno Hill (26Jun76), but Willert does not say if he died. Bullet went through French’s hat while on Reno Hill. • Both parents were widowers: Thomas and Ellen Burke Foy French. Father born in Spalding, Lincolnshire, England, dying in Baltimore in 1858 of fever. Mother died at 65 on 22Mar88 and buried in Holy Road Cemetery, Washington, D. C. • Appointed 2LT, 10th Inf., 18May64. • Fought at Petersburg, Weldon RR, and Chappell House, where he was wounded. • Bvt CPT. • Assigned to Seventh Cavalry 1Jan71. • Carried a “Long Tom” infantry rifle. • Extremely brave, even recognized by the Indians at the battle, especially the Sioux chief, Red Horse during the Reno rout, though some doubt this story pertained to French. Hated Reno for what he did and wished a “friendly” bullet had accomplished what French couldn’t bring himself to do. • Heavy drinker, causing him to be court martialed and dismissed from service. Sentence commuted by President Hayes. • Retired 5Feb80. • Fire destroyed his home in Bismarck, ND (34 N. 4th St.) on 20Feb80. • Buried in Fort Leavenworth cemetery, but exhumed on 4Mar91 and re-interred in Holy Road Cemetery, Washington, D. C., Section 23, Lot 257.
The next time I get to D.C.-- hopefully in January-- I will try to find his grave.
His drinking problems and his pending court-martial prohibited him from testifying at the RCOI. That was a shame and an awfully big loss to history, I think. I would have loved to have read his testimony.
I would love to know what you can dig up on him (no pun intended; yipes!). Like I said, I find him fascinating.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Dec 7, 2007 19:00:40 GMT -6
ltreilly-
As I recall, we kicked The French Court-Martial around a little on the 'Seventh's Secrets" thread.
Something about - drunk with laundresses while on an assignment maybe. I remember it struck me funny at the time.
Maybe something there will help you.
M
|
|
|
Post by ltreilly on Dec 7, 2007 19:51:22 GMT -6
Thanks for the tip. I've heard the stories about his alleged escapades with laundresses and fraternization with enlisted men (and even usage of opiates!) but I'm really starting to wonder about the particulars of the case. French apparently had a lot to say but I wonder why he didn't say it once he was out of the Army? If he was prepared to spill the beans at the Reno inquiry, why would he clam up once he wasn't in uniform? All very odd. I think I'm just going to have to plunk down at the Archives and dig up the court martial proceedings.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Dec 7, 2007 21:43:55 GMT -6
Everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey...including old French. There were a lot of skeletons in his closet. Don't know if it would've been wise to go shooting off his mouth. It might come back and bitten him in the ass. Most of those guys had dirty laundry of some sort. I imagine there were very few true secrets in the Seventh...well, with the possible exception of Mrs. Nash.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 8, 2007 11:59:30 GMT -6
I've just recently got hold of the Arrow and Trooper edition of Carroll's stuff on the court-martial. Still trying to get my head around it and its implications, but for what this is worth:
(1) French tags Mrs. DeRudio as his main accuser. (2) Another prime witness is the DeRudios' black servant, Frank Jones -- referred to at one point in the proceedings by the nickname "Cuff".
Now, Benteen (in Camp Talk, I think, if not elsewhere) refers to a "Cuff". The assumption has to be that Benteen passed "Cuff" on to the DeRudios when he himself went on recruiting duty within civilisation, and no longer needed a body-servant/groom/whatever he was.
Not sure if we can get a decent conspiracy theory out of this, since DeRudio was no Reno fan. (He was still briefing against him -- as well as Custer -- as late as January 14th 1869, according to the Pioneer Press cutting reproduced in G. M. Clark's Scalp Dance, p. 61.) So the notion that he'd be party to deliberately scuppering any RCOI testimony French might give is a bit of a stretch. Nonetheless ... the coincidence of (a) Benteen's client family, the DeRudios, (b) Benteen's former servant, and (c) Benteen as orchestrator of the whole RCOI strategy, is just a bit suggestive.
But ltreilly has hit the weakness in this: why didn't French come clean later? That is even odder than the timing and nature of the court-martial -- so I don't think we're there yet.
When, and how, did French's correspondence with Cooke's mother take place? I've a vague feeling that it was after the RCOI ... in which case he might just have been so far gone that all he wanted was approval from a single source, and was no longer concerned about the larger picture? But you're right, we know too little about this.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Dec 8, 2007 17:05:54 GMT -6
Cruising around eBay, I was looking at a publication (book?) titled 1876 Bighorn Yellowstone Journal. On the description page I found this............
"Another great article is also a mystery dealing with Captain French. During the battle he was one of the few officers who did extremely well and according to his men should have received a Medal of Honor. He would later write Lt. Cooke's mother that he should have shot Major Reno that day for cowardice. French refused to go along with the army cover-up and was extremely vocal about it to the extent the army banished him to a remote post and even in 1879 refused to allow him to testify at the Board of Inquiry dealing with Major Reno, and placed him under court-martial instead!"
Is the part in bold true?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Dec 8, 2007 17:36:57 GMT -6
That's an editorial comment by Tom O'Neill, who is a noted Custer devotee [and the proprietor of Custerbooks], which is not to say that the reproduction of the magazine is not worth having, just that the article probably does nothing to justify or establish that editorial comment.
You'd be better off going after Kent King's Massacre which is also up for bids. I was bidding thereon myownself, but I found a cheaper copy elasewhere. It pays to look around.
A personal comment on Custerbooks products. They are generally lesser quality reprints of out of copyright material [the photos, for example, become virtually worthless], but it is a good source for inexpensive original source material that is only otherwise available at unaffordable prices. Early Carroll stuff is a good example. Arrow and Trooper [which does business as Fat Daddy's Closet - don't let the name throw you] is another source for the same type of things. They generally sell their stuff in sets, which makes each volume somewhat cheaper.
Gordie MC now one secret is out............
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 9, 2007 12:33:58 GMT -6
The Carroll writings and compilations are not out of copyright. I suppose some people think they can reproduce it because he's dead and left no direct descendants, but it's still thievery in my book. That Colorado company that Gordie has defended from time to time bought their collection from O'Neil. When I questioned the copyright, the owner said he guessed the previous owner (O'Neil) had acquired the copyrights to the material. His guess was wrong and he was disturbingly flippant about it. Just to avoid confusion, www.custerbooks.com is the website of Ron Nichols, editor of Men with Custer, who is very much a Reno man.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Dec 9, 2007 13:35:14 GMT -6
Thanks Gordie and Diane. I was on the Arrow and Trooper site too. Everything is in sets, but it says individual items are available at an eBay link. When you click that link, eBay says 'store can be found'. Are these publications available individually anywhere else?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Dec 9, 2007 14:24:50 GMT -6
clw:
What one are you interested in? I might have it [them] and be able to ship you a copy. PM me with your needs. If the provided link didn't work, I have no idea of how to get individual titles. They used to sell them, but I noticed that they changed to sets some time ago - probably to make it more cost effective [and profitable] for themselves.
Diane:
I assumed that most of the stuff was either out of copyright, not copyrighted, or maybe not copyrightable in the first place. If not, then certainly I would NOT recommend using their services, and I apologize if I gave the impression of "defending" them, although I suppose recommending them as a source might be so construed. As an author myself [not just a writer], I have campaigned for authors rights, including being paid royalties on "remaindered" titles, and I would not assist in any effort which would deprive an author of his due, regardless of how it might benefit me or anyone else as an end user.
The Custerbooks I mentioned is the seller identification that appears on the Ebay listings, and I did not mean to imply that it had anything to do with Ron Nicholls. As a matter of interest, I stopped dealing with both O'Neil and Fat Daddy some time ago.
I personally do not consider it a cardinal sin to make copies of some materials or parts thereof available to friends or fellow students, any more than I think that quoting parts of others' works on boards such as these, without proper attribution, is an infringement of the author's rights. It is a different matter if one is publishing those same quotes IN one's own work, AS one's own work, or is re-publishing the other author's work to profit therefrom.
Gordie MC mea culpa
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Dec 9, 2007 19:53:07 GMT -6
"The Carroll writings and compilations are not out of copyright. I suppose some people think they can reproduce it because he's dead and left no direct descendants, but it's still thievery in my book."
I agree 100%!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 9, 2007 22:10:48 GMT -6
Gordie, I think we're in agreement. Copying for personal use or even to give a friend [in most instances] is not a problem for me. It only becomes a problem when someone publishes with the intent to sell and profit from a work that is not their own. Copyright law is much too complex for me to understand completely -- another area for lawyers to make lots of $$$ -- but I think it's safe to say that Carroll's work is still under copyright even with the most liberal (for the publisher) reading of the law.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Dec 10, 2007 5:10:38 GMT -6
What a nightmare. Does that mean it's not legitimate to quote from these or similar publications without first ascertaining that the publisher of one's source material hasn't infringed someone else's copyright somewhere along the line?
Aaaaaargh.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 10, 2007 8:50:05 GMT -6
Quoting with attribution has always been fine. It would be best to quote from the original source, if known, but I don't think you could be faulted for quotiing from an illegitimate copy of something. As I said, I don't pretend to know the law thoroughly, but I had to research the basics when I was the NL editor.
My main concern is the re-publishing of an entire work. Even if the original author is given full credit as author, a work cannot be published without permission from the author or his estate. For example, you couldn't publish General Custer's Libbie without permission from Frost's daughter, but you can quote from the book with attribution. Without attribution it becomes, of course, plagiarism.
It gets even more complicated in the world of ideas and theories versus concrete primary sources.
|
|