|
Post by twomoons on Mar 23, 2005 12:18:26 GMT -6
Your welcome, your okay in my book! Well, i've not written one yet, but I would love to!
I think that it goes along way in explaining why he may not have been seen by the others. It just makes sense. If he wasn't at the same ford, they wouldn't have seen him. And like I said the uncanny similarity with Curley's statements, I think it does put him at Ford D! Cheyenne or not! ;D
|
|
|
Post by CrzHrs on Mar 23, 2005 12:42:47 GMT -6
To Walt, again:
Not to get way off-subject here, but I went back to THC, clicked on a subject and got a blank, white screen. No text, no reply icon. Funny, I could post a new thread, but cannot get access to my or anybody else's thread!
Not being computer savvy, it might have something to do with my security/firewall settings. Anyway still haven't gotten any helf from TCH's tech people.
I find your theory on Harrington very intriguing.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Mar 23, 2005 12:55:05 GMT -6
CrzHrs; Sounds like maybe your browser? But I don't know. I can forward the comments here if you like, they all seem helpful.
Back on Subject: Two Moons; here is what HumVee guy had to say regarding MTC vs Ford D for JWCB:
JWCB is prominently mentioned by D.H. Miller and Greg Michno in their works on this subject. In Millers book WCB mentions Roan Bear and Mad Wolf who we know were at the MTC ford. The worthies who were at MTC all mention seeing each other but nobody mentions seeing WCB. This seems to indicate that WCB told the story based on second hand information and simply injected himself into the tale performing feats that nobody else happened to see. The Indians at Ford D were almost exclusively Northern Cheyenne. The best of these stories can be found in John Stands in Timbers "Cheyenne Memoties".
Walt
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 24, 2005 10:41:41 GMT -6
Walt: Thanks for the assistance . . . but I think I'm giving up on THC. I tried numerous times to get help from them but no response.
White Cow Bull should not be confused with White Bull, Sitting Bull's nephew. Both loved to brag and embellish their deeds. They were worthy warriors and could back up what they said. In their interviews/testimony there were no other warriors around who get challenge their words, which was common during the "old" days and kept warriors from getting away with more than they said.
One has to take into account that once on reservations Indians came to know it was more important to tell the white man what they wanted to hear instead of the truth. Also fear of retribution played a factor.
Indian testimony is very important to the events surrounding the LBH , but it takes a learned scholar to sift through the meanings and cross-check other accounts.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 24, 2005 11:21:34 GMT -6
Twomoons, I am going by memory here so beware, especially with this headcold!
But, if I recall correctly, didn't Rich Fox propose Ford D as GAC's likely crossing preference? His supposition was that GAC was attempting to bag the dependents and since they were fleeing in that general direction the liklihood was greatest there. Also, Ford D was to the north of the entire village while MTC was almost in the center and the Deep Ravine crossing was between B & D.
His theory had the men who were shot as a detail examining the water to confirm whether it was a good crossing point. As for the officer (we suppose) who was shot, both Fox & Hardoff contend (based upon Godfrey &, I think, Herendeen's testimony) that GAC had his buckskin jacket off and tied behind his saddle. I picked up Hardoff's Indian Views of the Custer Fight this week and have been reading it. Nice collection of work. Two things come to mind regarding this thread. More than one Indian participant stated that the river was not too deep to cross at most points (paraphrasing) and one Indian stated that most of the firing at the troops in the river was done by women. If you consider that it was largely women and children who would have been nearest Ford D, that makes sense.
Anyway, I picked up Fox again and have begun rereading it as it has been quite a while since I read it.
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Mar 24, 2005 16:17:02 GMT -6
Crzhrs. I agree with all you say.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 25, 2005 9:23:09 GMT -6
Thanks for everyone's comments. But I must say this. This incessant confusion over fords is what has caused all this misudertanding every since the battle.
The problem every one seems to harp upon is the fact the WCB was a womanizer, H. e. double hockey sticks, horse feathers, and all the rest expletives deleteds, we as "real" men all are, aren't we? Good grief if we judged all history based upon these kind of facts alone we couldn't or wouldn't get any where. I could make an analogy, but that too would most likely be thrown out of consideration because it doesn't pertain to the era. Or does it?
The fact is no one really knew or knows where WCB was. If he was the social butterfly that everyone says he was then maybe he just did have the HUM - V!
A few questions to clarify my points, okay?
1) Walt in your opinion, Jimbo's or the General's, was there any part of WCB's history the truth?
What was his actual participation in TLBH battle?
Where was he in the battle?
Should there be a cutoff point to believe or not believe Him? And not just on (being a womanizer - enough already)!!!
I believe there had to be some truths and I am trying to clear the fog, if you will, to find those truths.
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 25, 2005 23:49:15 GMT -6
I can conceed the fact the WCB was not at MTF! I never said that he was. That the other Indians said that he wasn't is proof enough for me!
For years, perhaps over a hundred years Curley, Kate Bighead, and others were lamblasted for telling lies, because their versons didn't fit current versions of the story. Now after archaeology proved them right their statements are held in high regard. Do we have to wait another hundred years to see if another Natvie American's testimony isn't a lie either?
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Mar 26, 2005 10:47:11 GMT -6
Two Moons; Speaking just for me, I think Joseph White Cow Bull was present at one of the fords. I always thought it was at Medicine Tail Coulee Ford. However, the other warriors indicate he was not there. Your suggestion that he was at Ford D has merit. I shall have to investigate further for myself. I think he witnessed what he says he witnessed and somehow its gotten twisted either in translation or intentionally by the white interviewer for his own ends. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out. As for the officers shot into the water I do not think one of them was Custer. More likely Lt. Algernon Smith and Lt. James Sturgis. As I may have mentioned Sturgis' body was not found, but his bloody clothing were found in the village. Likely he died near the village to have been dragged into it for "special treatment". I think Smith was gravely wounded and taken to LSH where he either expired or was killed when Custer was killed.
As for Jimbo and the General, they dismiss JWCB with a caveat that they are continuing to research.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 26, 2005 11:26:53 GMT -6
Thanks Walt please keep me apprized of any developements to this story. I am starting a book, and I would like to know everything I can get on ford D.
|
|
|
Post by Walt Cross on Mar 27, 2005 12:48:38 GMT -6
That is good news regarding yoru book. If I can help, let me know. My own manuscript "Custer's Lost Officer" is currently at the publisher. They have read the manuscript and like it and have submitted it to two "subject matter experts" who will make a recommendation regarding publication. Not a problem for me, if they don't publish it, I will. I have self published five other books. There are a lot of good sources out there in internetland who will help you, let me know if you need any suggestions on research.
Walt
|
|
|
Post by twomoons on Mar 27, 2005 12:58:24 GMT -6
Thanks Walt I will. I have been putting things together for years. The decision to publish came quite recently though, because I feel it important to share what I have uncovered. Some of it has been told here. But I haven't revealed it all. I'm still assimilating information and it is still in rough manuscript form. Well you know the process, I'm quite sure.
Yes, I would appreciate your assistance in the publishing aspects of this. I am always willing to learn. Thanks Twomoons
Bye the bye when is your new book comeing out? I would be very interested in reading it. And you say you have written 5 others. I'd be interested in those as well. pm me okay?
|
|