|
Post by Charles Thomann on Sept 16, 2005 17:41:23 GMT -6
Jeff Broome's book is obviously extremely well researched and extremely well written. He captures the time as it really was and then captures the events in perspective to that time in history. For anyone who seriously, and objectively, wants to understand these events of the 1860's in Kansas, and who has an open mind, this book is a must. Certainly, not all Indians were bad, but some like the Dog Soldiers did more harm to the Indian cause than can be imagined. Jeff puts this all in perspective and has the documented historical facts to back up his case. I teach history and I highly recommend this factual account to all who want the truth about American history.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Sept 24, 2005 23:25:17 GMT -6
For what it's worth, I attended Mr. Broome's symposium this weekend. I was much impressed.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Oct 17, 2005 12:35:57 GMT -6
Since Jeff had mentioned Kidder in his original post, I thought this an appropriate spot to point out something I just found out. I had not realized that Lt. Kidder's remains were not the only ones disinterred from its original resting spot. His men and Red Bead the scout were also disinterred and reburied at Ft. Wallace. From further research, they were disinterred at the same time as Lt. Kidder by a party led by Lt. Beecher of later Beecher Island "fame". Their remains (including Red Bead's) are now at rest in the Ft. Leavenworth National Cemetery-sharing a common coffin. Next time over there I will see if they have included the scout's name on the marker and get a picture. www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/special/military/vitals/images/burialreg/v1-301.jpggravelocator.cem.va.gov/j2ee/servlet/NGL_v1www.goodlandnet.com/history/kidder.htmBilly
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 17, 2005 20:08:50 GMT -6
Great, Billy. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by markland on Oct 23, 2005 6:31:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 23, 2005 7:06:53 GMT -6
Billy, do we know anything about the monument in the original graveyard at Fort Wallace? It was put up after the Barnitz fight, to commemorate the casualties of that; and was presumably carved from the local stone by some civilian stone-mason on the Fort Wallace construction team. (I'm guessing. From pictures I've seen on the web, the carving's perhaps a little crude, but not at all bad for something done out in the wilds.) It's quite a handsome thing. Still there, apparently -- see these pix. kansasphototour.com/wallace.htmWhat I can't establish is whether it was officially sanctioned and paid for by the Army, or whether it was a private initiative on the part of the Fort Wallace officers and/or garrison -- e.g. officers having a whip-round. (If the latter, I'm assuming Keogh, Beecher et al; by the time Bankhead took over, he had other things to worry about, such as the cholera that killed his wife.) A minor point, perhaps -- but if it WAS purely a Fort Wallace initiative, there could be a bit of subtext to it ... ? If you ever come across any records or correspondence concerning it. I'd love to know!
|
|
|
Post by markland on Oct 24, 2005 14:48:55 GMT -6
"What I can't establish is whether it was officially sanctioned and paid for by the Army, or whether it was a private initiative on the part of the Fort Wallace officers and/or garrison -- e.g. officers having a whip-round. (If the latter, I'm assuming Keogh, Beecher et al; by the time Bankhead took over, he had other things to worry about, such as the cholera that killed his wife.) A minor point, perhaps -- but if it WAS purely a Fort Wallace initiative, there could be a bit of subtext to it ... ? If you ever come across any records or correspondence concerning it. I'd love to know!"
Elisabeth, just venturing a guess (but I would bet money on being right) that a subscription to purchase the headstone was taken out by the officers and men of the fort. Actually, since they could have gotten the stone from around Ft. Wallace free and there may have been a former stone-mason in the ranks of the enlisted men at the fort, the expense would have been minimal. My reasoning is that no immense effort to dignifiy the final resting places of any other troops at any other western forts was undertaken by the Federal government; which is somewhat strange since such a massive effort was underway to collect, identify and bury bodies on the Civil War battlefields and at the Confederate prison camps. Perhaps not so strange as that since the west was definitely "out-of-sight" and "out-of-mind" to the people east of the Mississippi.
I saw an article about that very thing but can't wrack my brains enough to remember where or when right now. Hopefully I can remember and retrieve it for you. I will look through the Ft. Wallace records of the quartermaster's office and see if anything is mentioned in those the next time I get chance.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 26, 2005 8:31:08 GMT -6
Thanks, Billy! That's my bet too. And I seem to recall the construction work on the fort buildings was still going on at the time, so there'd be civilian stone-masons on site, quite apart from any there might have been in the ranks. As you say, it needn't have cost much money.
It'll be fascinating to know if it did go through the QM's office or not. (If it was entirely private, it might not have.) Wonder if anyone's collected/published any of Beecher's correspondence from that period? There's a reference in the Langellier/Cox/Pohanka biography of Keogh to an anonymous memoir, 'Lt. Fred H. Beecher -- A Memorial of', cited as 'Portland, OR: Stephen Berry, 1870'; but I don't know how accessible that may be. Must be full of interesting stuff ...
|
|
|
Post by jeffbroome on Oct 26, 2005 17:57:59 GMT -6
Like a fool (as some people think I am [I'm joking]), I typed in a long response to the discussion relating to Kidder and the centograph of 7th Cavalry men killed near Fort Wallace and still there today at the Fort Wallace cemetery, but I forgot to log in and everything was lost when I got off. First, about Kidder: If people are interested in knowing more about the Kidder massacre, I would recommend Johnson's Dispatch to Custer: The Kidder Tragedy, my own "On Locating the Kidder Massacre of 1867" (Denver Westerners Roundup), or my "Custer Kidder and the Tragedy at Beaver Creek" (Wild West, June, 2002, which can be read online via a google search using my name). The only thing Johnson and I disagree on is the location of the Kidder ravine. Two things about Kidder: First, when the men were recovered from the trench Custer had them buried in on July 12, 1867 (they were recovered March 1st, 1868, after a snow storm), Lt. Beecher wrote his father that it was a sad site to see, as wolves had dug open the trench and human skeletal remains were scattered about for a good distance (well over 100 yards). Second, when the bodies were removed from the Fort Wallace cemetery to where they repose today at Fort Leavenworth, "only a few bones were found" to represent all the men buried together, thus confirming Lt. Beecher's account to his father that barely any bones were recovered. This is recorded in Mrs. Montgomery's excellent 1928 article on Fort Wallace, in the Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society (1926-1928, Vol. XVII), p. 281. Regarding the other question about who was responsible for the centograph honoring the men killed in fighting in 1867, Mrs. Montgomery notes that it was "provided by troop I, Seventh Cavalry, and Company E, Third Infantry." (p. 282). And yes, the stone came from a quarry near Fort Wallace. Hopefully this answers some of the questions that have recently been raised in thiks discussion. I have been concentrating my research in the past year on Custer and the 7th Cavalry in 1867, the Hancock expedition that ended after the discovery of the Kidder dead. 15 months ago I located the campsite in Colorado where Custer camped one mile west of Riverside Station (using reports I found in the national Archives, along with detailed maps by Lt. Jackson), and where several of Custer's men deserted to the Colorado gold fields. I have noted the names of all the men who deserted from the 7th Cavalry that summer, including the entire company of men (minus the officers) from Fort Morgan. Anyway, Captain Benteen was with Custer that summer and guess whose company suffered more desertions than any other? Yep, good ol' Captain Benteen. The muster rolls which has Benteen's report recorded every two months, already shows his bitterness towards Custer. The Washita didn't turn Benteen against Custer. He was already bitter against him in 1867. The Washita gave him the opportunity to express his bitterness in a letter, which his friend had published. But that is another story.... Jeff
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 27, 2005 7:10:49 GMT -6
That's great information, Jeff. And fabulous stuff about the desertions and Benteen.
Fascinating that he made his views known so strongly even in official reports. Were the reasons for the dislike that he reveals there the same as those he gives in the Benteen-Goldin letters (pp 249-251)? I.e. the head-shaving incident at Fort Hays, the 'drowning' punishments at Fort McPherson, treatment of deserters, the story that Cooper was driven to suicide because Custer wouldn't allow the doctor to give him any whisky, etcetera etcetera? The way he tells it, it's when he arrives at Wallace -- the day after Custer's set off on his trip back to Libbie -- that Benteen starts hearing all these horror stories. Implying that plenty of other people were already pretty fed up with Custer by then, and eagerly seizing upon a new listener to sound off to ... He'll have found West still in the Fort Wallace guardhouse, presumably, too, and ready to vent his own indignation. One can see why Benteen's already poor impression of Custer won't have been improved by all this!
Something that never (as far as I'm aware) gets mentioned, but that you might know: we know that on Custer's dashing-back-to-Libbie trip, Benteen, who's en route to Wallace, runs into Custer on the way. (He says so himself, p. 250.) But Hancock has set off just a few days ahead of Custer, with Co. I as escort, has he not? So Co. I must surely be travelling back to Wallace along the same road ... yet we hear nothing of any meeting between them and Custer. Or were they still at Hays, waiting to set off? Either way, it's odd that a) we hear nothing, and b) no-one from Co. I either testifies at, or gives any deposition to, Custer's court-martial. If they HAD encountered Custer on the way, their evidence would surely have been of interest. (Brewster's September 7th letter to Custer makes clear that Keogh would not have been a friendly witness, but Brewster would. Yet neither seems to have been called.) It'd be great to know if there's anything on record that would throw more light on this ...
|
|
|
Post by jeffbroome on Oct 27, 2005 9:56:10 GMT -6
Elizabeth: Indeed, Benteen says some of the same things he writes to Goldin about years later. But, comparing what he writes to Goldin with what he writes in the Muster Rolls for that time in 1867, Benteen seems to confuse times and places. In the Muster Roll for May/June 1867, Benteen writes that on the morning of May 18 "4 privates of H Co, 7 Cav'lry, pvtes Collins, Barrig, Burrgin + Peterson had their heads shaved for being absent from camp 1/2 hour, by order of Brev. Mg Gen'l Custer!". The report continues that when the company was at Ft. McPherson in June, Sgt. James Kelley "packed a saddle from noon to retreat for visiting the fort without a pass after receiving permission from his 1st Serg't who was not aware of a pass being necessary." Now, if you compare what Benteen actually wrote in 1867 with what he wrote to Goldin nearly 30 years later, you see that his report says nothing about men nearly being drowned for offenses while at Ft. McPherson. I take it that this is because it didn't happen. You can see from the tone of Benteen's 1867 report that he is disrespectful of Custer, so if indeed men were nearly drowned as punishment, Benteen would have been more than happy to report it, but he didn't. It is interesting, too, that the cause for punishment was ignorance of Custer's orders mandating a pass to leave the camp, which was 1000 yards away from the fort. I wonder who those orders were given to, and not sent on to the first sergeant? Might it be the fault of Benteen himself? On June 7, 3 H Company privates drowned on Big Creek (see Libbie's recollections in her books), and earlier in March, 6 privates deserted. 38 (!) Company H men deserted in January from Fort Riley, including 2 sergeants and 1 corporal. To correct an earlier statement I made, only 28 men deserted from Fort Morgan, most in January 1867, but it included the 1st sergeant, 2 sergeants, and 6 corporals. They were from Company L. I do not know what to make of your interesting question regarding Benteen meeting Custer while Custer was on his way to see if Libbie survived the cholera. In studying just the Muster Rolls, it appears that Benteen is with Custer during the whole of the June/July Hancock expedition, and not away as he says later. Indeed, I don't see how it would be possible for him to be away and also handle the Muster Rolls. The rolls mention when an officer or soldier is on detached service and when they return, and I didn't find that on Benteen.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 27, 2005 11:20:01 GMT -6
Well ... According to the B-G Letters, pages as cited, Benteen has to leave Fort Hays to take five enlisted men to Fort Riley as witnesses in a deserter's trial; he then returns to Hays; and is then directed to "take a four-gun battery of Gatling guns to the regiment, which I did, joining at Fort Wallace, Kans." Maybe these various excursions were too brief to count as detached service?
Those deserter figures are astounding. Even the Benteen-haters generally give him credit for being a good company commander; what on earth can have happened to cause 38 desertions in one month? Especially from Riley, comparatively far from the goldfields, and in January, a bad time for travel. Something significant, surely. (Unless it's the famous story of the sergeant who took a patrol out, then said they were on their own from there on, because he was deserting? I never did hear which company that was ...) Still, it wasn't all bad news. Apparently Keogh used to pay his men a bounty for every deserter they captured. So Co. I must have made a fortune in 1867!
|
|
|
Post by jeffbroome on Oct 28, 2005 11:05:39 GMT -6
Elizabeth: I'm not sure what do do with what Benteen says 29 years later about being at Fort Wallace when the Muster Rolls show he was with Custer. During those 6 weeks of campaign, the command was never near Fort Wallace until Custer came there July 13, and indeed, the distance seems much too great from where Custer had his command for Benteen to have made such a jaunt. Company I of course was Keogh's company, and Benteen's was Company H. Sgt. Ryan's memoirs speaks of a bounty, I think regardless of company. If I remember it was $25.00 for each deserter returned. That was a lot of money when a private's pay then was only $13.00 a month. Fun stuff, though, huh? I am not through with my research into the muster Rolls, and still have companies to examine, but from the companies with Custer during the Hancock campaign, Benteen's wins it for desertions. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 29, 2005 7:17:30 GMT -6
Jeff,
Yes, that is a problem. I guess anyone's memory of details gets scrambled over 29 years (mine does over 29 minutes, these days!) so Benteen could well have got it wrong ... Still, the rest of Custer's command was still camped outside Wallace after Custer took off with his detachment; technically, Benteen would have been rejoining the main command there. Maybe he's right after all?
You're right, Sgt. Ryan mentions the bounty ('Ten Years with Custer', pp 121-122) as something that both Sgt Varden of Co. I and Sgt. Gordon of Co. M were expecting to get. He says it was $30. As Varden was involved, and it was a Co. I deserter they'd captured, it's not entirely clear whether it was an official regiment-wide bounty or just Keogh's idea. (The implication in the Langellier/Cox/Pohanka biography of Keogh, p. 106, is that it was his own initiative, but it doesn't specifically say so. He did get into trouble a few years later for offering a reward for the recapture of stolen mules, with Quartermaster General Meigs writing that "I doubt the propriety, or even the legality, of these rewards to soldiers" -- so it could have been just him.)
Ryan speaks of Custer's increasing strictness towards the men on the '67 campaign, and the various punishments; maybe if Benteen's men heard their commanding officer muttering and growling his discontent, it fuelled theirs, and made them feel freer to desert? Who knows ...
Fun stuff indeed!
|
|