|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 5, 2008 12:47:50 GMT -6
Reason to believe that I've never spelt Fanuiellle Halle correctly and it's unlikely to begin now. I'll avoid it. But, enough. I'm only 12, and I have to finish this doily before tea. I'll unlock a slave from the basement to help, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 6, 2008 6:17:08 GMT -6
Fred, on the "Casabianca" thing: I may be wrong, but I've always assumed that Benteen's use of it is shorthand for being the last one left behind to face disaster alone -- as in "The boy stood on the burning deck, Whence all but he had fled ...". His own experience of the pack-train was that the rest of the regiment had gone miles ahead and left it dangerously exposed to attack, so he's visualising the next man to get the task being stuck in the same position. Not so much "the last of anything" as "left behind to face the music", perhaps.
A bit like "tail-end Charlie", maybe. (Or is that only a British phrase?)
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on May 6, 2008 13:39:14 GMT -6
The important items taken from Hodgson's body was his ring and I believe his watch. No military documents were ever mentioned as being recovered from his body.
DC, Several accounts state that Custer's wounds were on the right side of his body. Jim did know that they accepted story was the left side. It was just a screw up.
If all you can find wrong with Jim's book is a handful of minor things it makes me wonder why you keep whining about it. You can find as many errors in Gray's books, Michno's, and just about everyone elses. Personally, I found SOTMS too choppy. The theory about the Custer side of the battle is rather antiquated. Of course there are plenty of positive things about the book as well. Gray was very anti-Benteen, to the point of making up things to make his point. For example, he stated that Custer was wondering why Benteen had not caught up with the rest of the regiment before Custer had even reached the river. The very thought is idiotic, since he knew Benteen didn't have time to catch up by then. Custer could not have been sure that there were no villages to the south until Reno had sent him word that the Indians were all to his front (north).
I have never accused Reno of being a coward. I doubt that he was. I do believe he was not a very competent officer and performed poorly during the battle. I never gave any credibility to Taylor's account of seeing Reno and Hodgson drinking whiskey during the charge. All other stories placed Reno in front of all but a few officers and the scouts. Taylor claimed that he looked behind him when he observed Reno and Hodgson. So unless Taylor was riding in the wrong direction he was likely not telling the truth. However, the other accounts don't have similar problems. Removing a more senior officer from command was a very touchy thing and is still almost never done. Fragging a private was not too difficult back then, an officer would have been a different matter. Also, being allowed to drink alcohol and being allowed to be intoxicated are two entirely different matters.
The problem with you DC is that you don't like any books with ideas that differ from yours. Anybody with any knowledge of this battle at all knows that you can find statements from participants on both sides that will support any theory imaginable. Very little can be proven regarding this battle. There is room for doubt on everything from the number of soldiers and Indians killed to the wounds on Custer's body. We can't get any two people to agree on what time the battle began. We can't even be sure if Custer is actually buried at West Point or in the mass grave under the monument. All that being said, I will make this my last post on these boards.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 6, 2008 15:43:55 GMT -6
Here's your logbook, dc: www.mysticseaport.org/library/initiative/PageImage.cfm?PageNum=1&BibID=30790Captain Layton seems to have been master for a couple of voyages, for sure from Nov. 26, 1888 to November 8, 1890. The only thing of note that seems to have happened is the temporary misplacement of a boat crew in the Okhotsk Sea, a not uncommon occurrence. The whale they had struck towed them far away from the Morgan, and after waiting two days tied up to the dead whale, they cut loose and headed for the nearest land, about 100 miles away. After five days of sailing, they landed and headed inland, returning to the shore just in time to see the Morgan sailing away, having given them up for dead. They were assisted by local natives, who took them to what turned out to be a Russian convict camp, where they were held as spies. They eventually were released and sailed back to San Francisco, the Morgan's home port, by way of Hong Kong, arriving a month after they had been declared dead. ref: The Charles W. Morgan, by John F. Leavitt, p. 51-52; The Charles W. Morgan, the Last Wooden Whaleship, by Edouard A. Stackpole, p. 108-109 There is also a list of men shanghaiied for the voyage: www.mysticseaport.org/library/exhibits/SFIntro.cfmwww.mysticseaport.org/library/exhibits/SFVoyage.cfm?Voyagenumber=101The numbers next to the names indicate the amount of money that came out of the men's wages and went to the crimp, James Laflin--usually a month's pay.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 6, 2008 15:51:02 GMT -6
Honestly, it's hard to believe this is a forum devoted to the Battle of the Little Bighorn for adults. A melodramatic footstomping exit?
1. We know WHAT was claimed taken from the body. The issue, clearly stated, is that there were logical reasons to visit the body to retrieve things that might have been of value before the Sioux got to it. Going to it was not without logic and cannot be solely attributed to drink and cowardice.
2. I'm only aware of Ryan's account sayin on the right, but the point is that with all the big names who read Donovan's book and approved and praised, nobody caught it. That means they either hadn't read it or, you know, were drinking by the logic Donovan attributes Reno. The things you vector in on here ARE rather minor, but the Churchillian application of endnotes is not, nor are Donovan's statements of contestable issue as 'fact.' Connell provides the different takes and makes few definitive judgements. Donovan doesn't favor a line of thought that Reno was drunk, it's stated as fact. And like Martin's 32 year augmentation of his testimony, he accepts implausible late blooming tales from iffy creatures without a blush.
3. "The problem with you DC is that you don't like any books with ideas that differ from yours." Except the evidence you provide proves the opposite. I agree with little of Gray's conclusions, but praise him for fitting the chains on we all have to deal with. 4. "Also, being allowed to drink alcohol and being allowed to be intoxicated are two entirely different matters." Really? I'd say being allowed to drink alcohol and Paris Hilton's thoughts on recombinant DNA are two entirely different matters, unless we had to read those thoughts, in which case one would follow the other in brisk time. Custer's allowing and - perhaps! - profiting from the sale of alcohol to his soldiers and the issue of whether some officers were drinking or drunk during the battle a short time later would so closely related they could not be closer without being the same issue.
5. You're right, we all know that the Custer end of the battle is a perpetual unknown and there's lots of evidence each way. Why, then, are we to be tolerant of those who state as fact that which cannot be known as fact? Ever. Donovan does.
On the mimic board, there is, or was, a thread devoted to discussion of their favorite photo of Custer, who they call Armstrong as if they knew and talked with him. I imagine this differs not at all from threads on American Idol contestants or Spears' site, where predictably they will refer to her as Britney. Footstomping exits and petulant tantrums there would be expected and age appropriate.
No such thing is imaginable for those who admire or defend Benteen and/or Reno, and no known person because of physical attractions they could feel towards them. Grown men mooning over graphics of their male idol isn't a comfy visual for some, like me. Those who are kinder to Reno and Benteen see the only issue as applying the same standards all around, what was known at the time in question, and retention of mission goals. That is not the goal of the Custerphile, and Donovan is one.
M,
Thank you for the effort. The original I may or not have actually seen being the actual log, but the contents were discussed at Sunday dinners, and I think there was a transcript. I do recall thinking they were operating out of Hawaii, or had visited there, just before he became captain. In any case, this is why masts and sails are known to me. I'm from New Bedford.
Whaling was a rough life, forgetting ecological issues for the moment, and your pay was a percentage of profit only. No profit? No pay. You could come back OWING money to the owners or their 'store.' Some voyages lasted four years, so this was, as they say, an "issue". Despite being a captain and working for New Bedford owners for years, he died as a nightwatchman for a warehouse, I'm told. His daughter, my grandmother, was rather ashamed of that, somehow. The later voyages were tough with so few - comparably - whales of any sort, and sperms rare enough.
The good Captain lusted after the ladies - not all his wife - if the sidenotes in the log are correctly translated and understood. I was shocked - shocked I tell you - to think that his eyes wandered after years of separation. And: he got seasick. The Captain. Heaving over the side. It took him a couple of weeks to get used to it, and like Ahab, stayed in his cabin till he could handle it. Family tale, no clue if true. But I share those same two foibles as well as his last name, my middle.
So! Imagine being prone to getting seasick, on a rough sea (not unknown in the Northern Pacific), cutting blubber and melting the fat in the trypots. Um! Talk about smellin' great, feelin' great! And what's for grub? Whale meat boiled in fat! Only three more years, me hearties!
When my brothers and I went through our own alcohol initiations, and possibly woke someone on return, Dad would wake us for breakfast with Shredded Wheat in warm beer. And lunch? Chickenfat sandwiches with warm mayonaisse. We can imagine where that came from, I'd think.
That was my mother's typewriter (an Underwood portable) that she had at college typing on the cover label. Know it anywhere. And good handwriting in the family as well, given the ocean roll and all. Nice to see that again. His daughter's was near identical.
Thank you for the thoughtful posting, though I doubt of much interest beyond my own.
|
|
|
Post by clw on May 6, 2008 17:16:55 GMT -6
Being the originator or perpetrator, as the case may be, of the "Images of Armstrong" thread, I'm just crushed you think I've reduced myself to hero worship. I thought it sounded kinda catchy when I made it up, but granted I'll never have your gift with words. I'm sixty years old dc, in my second childhood and loving it. But I've never made a foot stomping exit in my life. Give me a break. Fred and Marcus aren't as pretty and the thread would have been too short.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on May 6, 2008 20:22:49 GMT -6
I think the footstomping exit referred to was Gumby's (above), which is a shame. I hope he will reconsider.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 6, 2008 23:11:36 GMT -6
Fred and Marcus aren't as pretty and the thread would have been too short. How about a Keogh thread? Or would that be too long?
|
|
|
Post by Scout on May 7, 2008 12:37:34 GMT -6
"Honestly, it's hard to believe this is a forum devoted to the Battle of the Little Bighorn for adults." So why are blessing us with your presence oh mighty one?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 7, 2008 14:34:39 GMT -6
To lend tone to an otherwise unseemly brawl.
|
|
|
Post by KarlKoz on May 20, 2008 11:55:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 27, 2008 8:54:54 GMT -6
So. Anyone actually read it yet? I had some queries still unaddressed by those who rose to defend it. No rush, of course.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 27, 2008 10:12:35 GMT -6
So you want congratulations for having read a whole book? Happy to oblige. Well done.
Those of us who initially rose to its defence did so against knee-jerk condemnations before the book had even come out. Myself, I think that's not unreasonable. (I'm aware of your proud claim that you can review a book without reading it, but few of the rest of us possess that talent.)
As for the later criticisms: (1) if you'd read more Custer/LBH books than you have -- and I can well understand and applaud your decision to limit yourself to the soberer stuff such as Gray and Where Custer Fell -- you'd appreciate that most base themselves around One Big Controversial Theory. (E.g. Pennington, conspiracy, and so on.) To its credit, this one does not. It simply tries to tell the story from the available evidence, without any headline-grabbing shock/horror grandstanding. (2) You've identified errors. Fine. Name me one Custer/LBH book of similar scope in which same are not to be found. (In most, one finds oneself howling "NO" every two pages.) (3) What is your animus against this entirely harmless and well-meaning book? All it sets out to do is tell the story, as honestly and judiciously as possible. Where there's controversy over facts, Donovan addresses that in the endnotes. Where there's no certainty, he admits that. Where, even, interpretations of personalities are called for, he takes the humane view, painting no-one as hero and no-one as villain. In stark contrast to many other books on the subject, one might add.
So, essentially -- where's the problem? You may not agree with the book; you may not yourself like it; but I really don't understand why it merits this personal vendetta. Seems out of all proportion to me.
Heavens to Murgatroyd, a hundred other books deserve it more. It can't be, surely, that you're putting the boot in on me and the faultless Billy. Has to be something else. Do explain.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 27, 2008 11:30:20 GMT -6
I read all but the first 10 chapters before it went back to the library and also read the endnotes. Thought I posted about it but maybe on another thread. Not sure I cared about the subject matter of the first 10 chapters leading up the battle anyway. I learned a lot from it and am quite happy in having read it. Luckily I don't believe everything I read and may disagree with some of his conclusions but overall I learned a lot that I did not know and it helped put certain things in perspective. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting to learn about the battle. It appears to be written more to the general public and not to a critical custer researcher which is why you or someone labeled it as pedestrian. It does appear to be about as complete as any book I've looked at which are very few.
That is my review. I'm not out to attack or defend since I didn't write it. If you have queries you want someone to defend, I suggest you direct them to the author. Only he can defend his book. I believe he lives in the Dallas area if you want to contact him. I'm working on reading a couple other books, Doran's horsemanship and Gray's centennial campaign. Both of them have reached conclusions I both agree with and disagree with and I am not about to try to defend their books either. Only they can defend their books. Every custer researcher/book writer has drawn certain conclusions about what happened at the battle. These conclusions and theories are all public domain and have nothing to do with the book itself as the book is only the medium for relaying said information. No different that writing an ebook through the posts and threads on this board. It doesn't do any good to attack or defend the messenger/book when you have a beef with the message/book. You have to look to the author of the message.
In regards to conclusions/theories that are part of the public domain, that is what this board is doing a good job of addressing. There are plenty of threads on this board or you can start a new thread to address any queries regarding theories.
I know teetee about what happened because my theory since childhood has been that custer lined up all his troops at MTF and that custer or a custer was one of the first to fall, then causing a general retreat. Unfortunately that theory has been debunked by too many people. That was what was said in John Lockwood's Custer fell First book (which I read when a kid) but everyone has debunked Lockwood as not being there. That theory is also supported by Martini and Custer's indian scouts but they are constantly being debunked by many on this board as unreliable, etc. I've read enough to know that that theory is very unreliable and the more I read the worse that particular theory gets. Therefore I'm working on a new theory but haven't completed one yet so I have nothing to defend. Anything I do come up with, I'd have to go to the battlefield to test it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on May 27, 2008 13:54:05 GMT -6
So. Anyone actually read it yet? I had some queries still unaddressed by those who rose to defend it. No rush, of course. I'm going to wait till the movie comes out. No point in reading a book when you can watch the DVD with the director talking over the scenes. Books are soooooo yesterday. By the way, when Tom Cruise buys the rights, 'Jim' will be worth mega bucks.
|
|