|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 13, 2008 3:24:06 GMT -6
Hi Gumby
I will be very interested to read your conclusions.
Edgerly stated that Custer's column was out of sight after 10 minutes but I guess we cannot really use that to negate Godfrey's assertion especially as Godfrey was bringing up the rear. Godfrey did make the strange comment about hearing gunshots from Custer's column which have never been properly explained and both Godfrey and Edgerly suggested the route was much longer than that proposed by Darling.
The key point for me is that all those who gave a direction stated that it was SW. Admittedly Moylan said it was West but he also said that Benteen's route was at 90 degrees to the main column and that the main column was headed North (?!). Thus effectively even Moylan was saying SW when you take into account that the main column was really going NW.
I think the solar time of day when the column crossed the Divide was about 10.40am so it should have been reasonably apparent which direction they were headed.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 13, 2008 9:23:17 GMT -6
With direction as well as time, when were these precisions recorded and what were they based upon? Recollection, something written at the time, shared info, reasoned guess?
What people put in family letters should not be counted as testimony. Different audience. LBH river ran roughly north, the visible Rockies would be west, and trying to meld memories of those assumptions with recordings by others of exact direction would provide understandable conflict. As with time, nobody seemed thrown that memories of direction differ.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 14, 2008 10:01:47 GMT -6
"You might want to hold off on this one. While this book has its moments it is the not as good as it appears. The author is given to speculating on events with little factual data to back these speculations up. I've caught him misrepresenting Indian accounts on the battle itself so many times that I've lost count on the number of times he did it. His rendition of the Custer end of the event is so speculative that it borders on being science fiction. Donovan has a flair for the dramatic in his writing but he takes a great deal of editorial license in his research which translates into his commiting numerous errors in the telling of his tale. I found this to be suprising in that the book has a large and comprehensive bibliography and extensive footnotes. However, his narrative leaves alot to be desired. I don't consider this book to be one of the better efforts on this battle." This is a load of bunk, probably perpetrated by some clown with no more accurate or informed a viewpoint than my dead mother. Donovan is entitled to his opinion of the battle just as much as Pennington, Gray, Fox, me, darkcloud, Graham, Sandoz, or CSS, and Donovan's is no more outrageous than any of them. Unless, of course, this idiot knows for sure! I also notice he makes no specific references. The whole thing smells more like spoiled meat than informed opinion. And misrepresenting Indian accounts? Wowie-Kazowie! Who shall be trust now, Curley? White Cow Bull? How about Cochise? Maybe he should change his name to "Jerko117." I love you, Hunk. You are never a dog. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Apr 14, 2008 10:13:04 GMT -6
I love you, Hunk. You are never a dog. Best wishes, Fred.
Mind you King Rat, there are those who consider me to be barking mad! Keep happy. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 14, 2008 11:02:52 GMT -6
Okay, you guys get a room. I bought and have mostly finished Donovan's book. I'm sorry, but it's quite pedestrian, nothing new, and he makes the same valuations of forty year old and dubious accounts as equal to RCOI testimony. The supposed many evidences of Reno being drunk is often taken from numerous late arriving accounts like Taylor when the preferred story line was out. Donovan also calls the cleric who claimed Reno confessed his drunkeness (and this was a rising political issue, resulting in Prohibition decades later) at the LBH a 'good friend.' The recalled incidents go from glass containers - since the amount was known - to gallon flasks. There was liquor on the hill and lots had a swig. Big deal. If Reno was drunk, he'd have been pilloried by everyone if not shot in the field. Also, the book is dedicated to his mother, who read him this poem as a child. Gee. Wonder what attracts him to the LBH and where his sympathies lie? Hazard a guess, read the book, and be totally unsurprised. endtimepilgrim.org/boystood.htmOne thing which I had not noticed before, or forgot, is that supposedly Kellogg's notes last only to June 9. Donovan has his "I go with Custer..." sign off which references leaving the Rosebud written on the 24th, and this was actually sent back with the Far West before they actually went down the Rosebud. Thoughts?
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Apr 15, 2008 22:53:58 GMT -6
DC, Besides the soldiers and civilians who either stated outright or hinted at Reno being drunk there is also his behavior. It is impossible to justify some of his actions, particularly his overconcern with the remains of Lt. Hodgson when his own bttn was demoralized and in need of reorganization. He made little or no effort to see to the needs of his bttn once they reached the bluffs. Men were straggling in for at least thirty minutes to an hour, depending upon the timeline you want to believe. Herendeen brought a dozen soldiers across the river after the pack train arrived. The RCOI testimony was certainly not "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." The Officers had obviously "circled the wagons" to protect reputations, living and dead. Benteen and Reno were the only officers who bashed Custer at all, and that was fairly light by comparison to the things Benteen said in later years. Walter Camp had the opportunity to interview or correspond with more of the participants than anyone and he was positive that Reno was drunk, based upon those interviews. My personal belief is that Reno suffered from a combination of shock and the overconsumption of alcohol, which further impaired his judgement. I believe that is why Benteen stopped for so long to assist him before becoming fed up himself and moving toward Custer, along with French's Company M. If you get a copy of Camp's notes, not just the three books, you will find ample sources to support the drunkeness claim. I know Jim reviewed them because I borrowed the rolls of microfilm from him. If you haven't done so, I would advise purchasing copies of all of the rolls of microfilm if possible. They are a gold mine.
That being said, I take issue with those on the boards who have complained about authors picking and choosing which accounts they choose to believe or not. WE ALL DO IT! Look at the accounts left by Trumpeter Martin alone. He contradicts himself from one interview to the next. If Godfrey is to be believed in the interviews he gave to Camp and Graham, then he perjured himself at the RCOI. So did most of the others. The only way to put together any kind of credible account of the battle is to sift through all of the available information, not just interviews and testimony, and piece together the obvious, the probable, the credible, and the possible. The rest become footnotes at best. Most editors cut a great deal of the information they consider unnecessary. I saw just a small portion of the editors cuts before Jim's book came out. They were wanting to cut almost entire chapters of interesting information, especially the RCOI stuff. For those of you who think writing books or articles is so easy, give it a try yourself. I promise to give you the courtesy of reading them before I judge it. If I don't read it I won't try to write a review.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 16, 2008 8:07:29 GMT -6
I read it. I didn't intend to, but it was there in front of me at the Boulder Book Store.
Just want to clarify my point about not having to read LBH books before reviewing them. If you've been at this for years, decades, you find yourself knowing the tack and content of books by experience of the author's remarks, the flyleaf, and keywords in the title. "Glory" is a classic. Anyone can review it and stand a good chance of being 80% correct, which is pretty pathetic for the genre.
You treat the records of Camp as testimony of unassailability. Fifty, give or take, years after the battle, Camp collected recollections of participants. Many of them recollected Reno being drunk or at least drinking. I have no doubt he was drinking, and that many others were. We know this because it would be entirely unusual in those days if they didn't drink, and because every army in the world, and navy, encouraged it before battle. And there were the initial stories which everyone knew, and old men tend to go with the flow and insert themselves into the past as, if not a participant to an important thing, a direct witness.
I say Camp collected recollections of participants, but did he? Or recollections of recollections flavored by everyone else's and what the papers now were saying. And of those who say Reno was drunk, how many saw it and how many are just repeating a story, possibly from a common source? These were the years of Prohibition, do not forget, when Camp found tales supporting it.
You assume, and others assume, these are all separate and mutually supporting accounts. I suspect after a half century these are all derived from the same very few accounts.
You say Reno acted drunk. When we know without hesitation in later life he was drunk, he was a belligerant fool. That's not the Reno of the LBH.
Those who condemn the supposed cowardice of Benteen for allowing the soldiers to watch corpses being desecrated - and, er, pre-corpses - damn Reno for trying to prevent the same of the corpse of an apparently wildly popular officer close by in view. It's assumed these 'trivial' tasks that appeared important to Reno are the sign of his collapse. Perhaps. Spun another way, which I do not really claim, they are the signs of an officer keeping men busy till mounts returned, help arrived, and developments appeared.
I've complained for years: at the arrival on the hill, how many healthy men with mounts? Without? We don't know. The officer in charge had a good idea, there wasn't any nonsense about going on the offensive again for dubious purpose, there would be none about digging in at that place without contemplation, and here's Benteen and the train dragging up. Reno and the men were in excusable shock.
People make much about Reno's defensive reply to the surgeon's remark about "the men were demoralized" with "That was a charge, sir!" as if it were a non-sequitor and defensive. Actually, the non-sequitor is the question, if asked when it supposedly was. It was an accusatory remark in the past tense, suggesting it was asked well after it supposedly was. But he's a doctor, so he must be honest in recollection and every word. It's the equivilant of a medic rushing up to the officer in charge of a event that went badly and just completed and saying 'that was pretty stupid, don't you think?' Regardless of culpability, nobody would damn the officer for beating the crap out of the punk. Come on.
There must be a percentage of incoherence and cya that attaches to any action, good and bad, and shouldn't indicate anything beyond a weary "it's war, dingbat. It's what happens...' But the baseline for consideration of the LBH is flawless execution by near gods. That's really silly. I would bet, because I've heard honest men - combat vets - support it, that officers have good and bad days like everyone else. This was not the magic day for Reno, especially not for Custer, and others. Happens. What Reno did would be explainable with or without booze, which makes the fixations suspect.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 16, 2008 9:21:52 GMT -6
Mmmmm, yes ... all good points ... but the drinking question was raised as early as the RCOI, was it not? Admittedly, the temperance mindset that led into Prohibition was already beginning to form by 1879, with the "old army" seen rather as dinosaurs; but then again, it was "old army" people who made up the RCOI, so it can't have been modish squeamishness that motivated that line of questioning.
Easy to damn Porter, as a mere civilian. But McDougall also reported a totally bizarre response from Reno. Whether drunk, in shock, or both, he clearly wasn't firing on all cylinders ...
Agree, there's a tendency to expect a perfection and lack of muddle in this battle that certainly applies to no other. Even so: if we look at, say, the Rosebud -- or the Hayfield or Wagon-Box fights, or Beecher's Island -- there's confusion and mess, there are casualties, there are arguably bad decisions, but never any outcome on the scale of LBH. It's perhaps not surprising, then, that it gets closer scrutiny. Custer is the box-office factor, of course; but even if the five companies had been led by, say, Reno or Benteen instead, their wiping-out would still attract attention, I'd think.
Incidentally, a couple of things re Jim's book. First, the use of "Glory" in the title: that was not his initial intention. As Gumby remarks above, when something comes out through a mainstream publisher, you're not always your own master in these matters. And secondly, deducing an attitude from a reference to "Casabianca": funnily enough, the only person connected with the LBH story (as far as I know) to espouse the poem is Benteen. He uses it at least once, I think more than once, to sum up his sense of having been left holding the baby. So not, perhaps, entirely fair to assume automatically a CSS-style "Custer was betrayed!!!" attitude from its use? (In any case, narrative poems are great things to grow up with. I pity the child that doesn't get the chance ...)
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 16, 2008 13:29:04 GMT -6
E, you address aspects not raised by me.
The drinking was raised at the RCOI. What I was talking about was when Camp obtained these tales. I don't get, and didn't make, observations about moddish (itself nearly a half century out of date) vs. dinosaurs. It's time vs. memory in my consideration.
I didn't damn Porter. I'm a mere civilian. That Reno wasn't firing on all cylinders is a given. He's in shock, he's been drinking. But drunk?
"...but never any outcome on the scale of LBH." Right. But the guy accused of being drunk saved his command, coincident or not. It's the tea sipper that bites it.
Whether or not it was the author's intent, the content nudged consideration of title reflected it and a targetted audience. "And secondly, deducing an attitude from a reference to "Casabianca..."" was not my deduction, but what the author chose to include.
And, you've missed utterly the point of that child's poem, which has nothing to do with being left holding the baby but sacrificial death to no point or honor. If there was any truth to the tale, and that takes a willing mind, it probably reflected a reluctance of anyone to rescue the kid with the ship about to blow, and guilt is assuaged by overpraise. Benteen was not known to overpraise Custer, and what guilt he might have felt is indistinguishable from that felt by combat commanders. The primary quality of that glurgy poem is not narrative but false sentiment.
And the author uses three names. Who'd have thought?
This also falls into literary template. The old song Golden Vanity (metaphor alert) and to the real life John Trevers Cornwell at Jutland. Well. More real than Casabianca, small doubt. Like anyone could hear the kid, if he existed.
As a third addition to this post, reflect for a moment on the Half Yellowface Quote on page 212. Instead of "...a road we do not know" it is "...a road strange to us both." If the Crow language was written at that time, and the Crow words recorded, various translations would be fine. But it wasn't. Someone, cannot tell who, did this by memory and falsely put it in quotes. Makes no difference here. But reflect on that and what it implies about so called quotes from Indians NOT then on our side.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 18, 2008 5:21:35 GMT -6
Sorry, but if "Also, the book is dedicated to his mother, who read him this poem as a child. Gee. Wonder what attracts him to the LBH and where his sympathies lie? Hazard a guess, read the book, and be totally unsurprised" isn't deducing an attitude, my acquaintance with the English language is more tenuous than I realised. And no, actually, I was referring not to the meaning of the poem, but to the context in which Benteen uses it. But never mind.
"Moddish"?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 18, 2008 8:39:24 GMT -6
My point being I didn't deduce it; he willingly expressed it. SOTMS is dedicated to Curt Gowdy, for example, a famous American sportscaster and outdoorsman and friend of Connell. Of a piece with the book and author, which is compassionate and realistic and unhysterical to the extreme.
The book in question - and I understand about sticking up for friends, and good on ya for doing so in all seriousness - speaks to a male romantic. If he grew up on mother's knee emoting Etonian glurge, and later arrives at Custer, an accurate prediction of product is not out of place, and in fact there it is. I'd further bet alcohol hasn't been part of his life, because he reaches long for evidence of drunkeness in Reno.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 18, 2008 11:24:04 GMT -6
You do me too much credit. In this case I wasn't so much sticking up for a friend -- who needs no defence from me, in any case -- as questioning the logic of your statement.
I question further, now that you're describing this book as "romantic". Huh? How? And in what? To me it reads as objective, judicious, and, yes, "compassionate and realistic and unhysterical to the extreme". I see no mindless adulation of Custer, no Cornut-style "Custer was betrayed!!!" nonsense, no demonisation of any participant one millimetre beyond what the evidence will support; wherein lies the alleged "romanticism", for goodness' sake? If you're taking exception simply to the flow of the narrative, which is all that I can imagine has raised your ire ... well, back to Casabianca, I think. Being read narrative poems at one's mother's knee, whether "Etonian glurge" or any other kind, does -- I can testify -- give one a taste for a damned good story. You've chosen to interpret the dedication in your own inimitable way; myself, I'd have guessed it's thanks for the passing-on of the narrative bug. But who knows.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 18, 2008 22:48:50 GMT -6
I don’t call the book romantic. It’s pedestrian. Unlike Connell and like Connell’s description of Kellogg, there aren’t six lines of memorable phrase or magic in it.
I say the author suffers from being a male romantic, as his choice of poetry recalled reflects. Early infusion of glurge takes a toll. The poem chosen for honor is romantic, childish, glurge. He’s a Custerphile. That he isn’t actually overcompensating in chest beating bravado like the Swiss Miss still allows a broad tundra of the ilk for contemplation.
Speaking of Kellogg, Connell claims we have no notes of his after June 9, from Ft. Lincoln to the Powder. Yet Donovan has his final remarks on the 24th, because of the Rosebud mention I guess, and the note was to his boss about “…I go with Custer.” But that went with his final dispatch from the Far West, as I read it, when he left with Custer days before. Anyone clear that up? His writing may have been anticipatory, kept on the pack train, or is evidence for a runner getting through to Terry otherwise.
The book is not unbiased. It collects a lot of mentions of Reno being ‘drunk,’ although most don’t suffer much observation, appeared late, from people not ordinarily believed, and probably just passed along rumor or trying to be with the current trend of blame. On page 236, we’re told, Reno took a big swig and finishes the flask. This obtained fifty years after by Camp, without reference to who saw it or who was paying such attention to Reno under a supposed panic flight to the trees. Girard, who admits to hitting the bottle early, and Reynolds share a swig later. The packer story is believed without any mention of alternative issues.
No doubt many drank. It would be atypical if not. As with whores, the US military is hypocritical in its history about booze, although it semi-officially allowed both at need. Britain issued condoms and rum without much rancor from the clergy. The Germans, schnapz. The Russians, vodka and windshield fluid. The French and Italians had wine, so that was a moot point, and there was no nonsense about celibacy.
He loves Sklenar, finds him insightful, then ignores the entire bizarre point of To Hell With Honor, which was that Benteen’s ‘scout’ was to come in on the side of the auxillary camp, soon just the lone tipi.
As always, the Custerphile implies or claims but doesn’t examine any supposed obligation to go to Custer or obligation to mission and men.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Apr 21, 2008 12:00:28 GMT -6
Dark Cloud, You really ought to talk to Jim before you decide based upon his mention of some poem that he is overly sympathetic to the Indians or that he is a Custerphile. I talked to him last week and he, as I do criticizes Custer for trying to act like a squadron commander instead of a Regimental commander on the 25th. He also has criticism for some of the Indian stuff. As for the title, I don't know where he got it from. But if you are trying to sell books you better come up with "catchy" titles. You should also keep the titles short, easier to remember. You can't always judge books by titles or covers for that matter.
As for first person accounts, I give them only slightly more credibility than having no accounts, unless there is other evidence or information to support them. Most lawyers consider eyewitness accounts as the absolute worst form of evidence there is. And No, I am not a lawyer. Reno's behavior on the bluffs was peculiar to say the least. He was certainly drinking. He was probably in a degree of shock. Hodgson being a popular officer does not excuse Reno's ignoring the needs of the rest of command. Not only did he waste time and effort by personally going down to Hodgson's body to retrieve personal affects, but he also wated time by ordering Varnum to take men to go down and bury the body. An order not rescinded until Benteen and French got tired of Reno's incompetence and began leaving without him. He was not that good of a field commander to begin with (look at his war record). He was a desk staff officer during most of the war, writing out orders for his commander, unlike others, who rode around as quasi-scouts. When he finally got his own regiment through his wife's family's influence (like many others), the regiment had a fairly dismal record in battle. His personality was not very appealing even before he began drinking heavily. Read his West Point record for particular incidents. Certainly it can never be proven that Reno was intoxicated, but there is ample evidence to support the charge of that or incompetence. As I have said before, my belief is that he suffered from shock and liquor combined. Whether the Army of that day encouraged drinking or not is not relevant, they did not encourage drinking enough to impair good judgement.
I am not a Custerphile by any means. I blame Custer and of course, the Indians for the 7th's defeat on June 25th. I believe there were mistakes made by many, Reno and Benteen included. I don't believe Reno was under any obligation to race to Custer's support for two reasons. First, it wasn't possible due to the lack of mounts for his men. Secondly, because he and his troops were in no condition to do so, due to the wounded and need for reorganization. However, he did little to solve either problem.
Someone on a previous page also claimed that Donovan was incorrect when he referred to Michael Sheridan as a Captain in his book. Michael Sheridan was indeed a Captain in the 7th Cavalry. He was only a Brevet Colonel. He was a company commander of the 7th but never served with the regiment prior to the battle because he was assigned as his brother's aide.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 21, 2008 14:43:34 GMT -6
Gumby,
"You really ought to talk to Jim...." No, I shouldn't have to know an author to comment on his work. As here, it doesn't matter who or what you are or think you are, it's what is printed under your name or posted.
I don't critcize him for Indian stuff. He is a Custerphile in their adjusted garb. Gosh darn, yeah, Custer was just so brave and heroic still inappropriately led them himself like a company captain. It's the male version of "Guilty of Loving Too Much...."
The sad thing is that if you can't 100% of the time judge a book by the cover, you can 80% of the time by the title and near 90% if it's a Custer book.
2. "Reno's behavior on the bluffs was peculiar to say the least." For the circumstances? Really? "He was certainly drinking." No, apparently he drained his flask earlier. Couldn't drink anymore. But, even so, he wasn't alone, was he? "He was probably in a degree of shock." He'd be declared mentally ill if not in a degree of shock. "Hodgson being a popular officer does not excuse Reno's ignoring the needs of the rest of command." That's possible, but did he? That would be subject to interpretation and spin.
"Not only did he waste time and effort by personally going down to Hodgson's body to retrieve personal affects, but he also wated time by ordering Varnum to take men to go down and bury the body." The info of the adjutant might be of use. Wasted time? He was waiting for the arrival of the train and Benteen's guys.
"An order not rescinded until Benteen and French got tired of Reno's incompetence and began leaving without him." That's your opinion. French may have been panting for the train more than Reno, already an alcoholic. That might only be my opinion. That French didn't leave without him isn't. Weir and Benteen left.
"He was not that good of a field commander to begin with (look at his war record). He was a desk staff officer during most of the war, writing out orders for his commander, unlike others, who rode around as quasi-scouts. When he finally got his own regiment through his wife's family's influence (like many others), the regiment had a fairly dismal record in battle. (Um, many units were pretty dismal) His personality was not very appealing even before he began drinking heavily. Read his West Point record for particular incidents." I have in the past and I'm not a soldier, much less one with combat experience. So I don't damn those who are because I have no standing to do so, coupled with the belief I'm pretty sure I'm a coward. For such a dismal record he somehow ended a brevet general. Apparently opinions varied.
"Certainly it can never be proven that Reno was intoxicated, but there is ample evidence to support the charge of that or incompetence." No, there isn't. There is ample opinion one way or the other. There isn't any evidence he was under the influence or incompetent. His immediate goal was to unite with other units.
There are two issues about Reno's performance. One, some have to insert the belief that it was both an obligation and a mission compatable duty to go to Custer once on Reno Hill; and 2) that leaving the timber of good cover was a sign of cowardice RATHER than based upon a highly reasonable assumption that no support would be coming in meaningful time and they'd be stuck with downed mounts and low ammo all coming to fruition in the dark by a huge village. Looking down the valley, Reno could see no suggestion of a viable crossing point for much distance if at all. That nothing had happened suggested the possibility Custer had hit something on the east bank. He had no clue where Benteen was or the train or what Custer's fall back was.
3. "First, it wasn't possible due to the lack of mounts for his men. Secondly, because he and his troops were in no condition to do so, due to the wounded and need for reorganization. However, he did little to solve either problem." Out of curiousity, how does one solve a problem of the dead, missing, wounded without waiting for help? Engage in spontaneous regeneration?
Here's the money point. You can, or anyone can, switch Reno and Custer as commanders of their groups, changing nothing else whatsoever.
Except that you could and would excuse everything quick-witted Custer did reacting to reality on the ground and not pointlessly waiting for death. Slow-witted Reno - drunk, dumb, probably gay - didn't react to his situation well, and fell back upon rote manual tactics rather than casting them aside as Custer did - knowing fortune favors the brave - and so Reno was slaughtered. Custer refused to risk his beloved regiment's remainders in a fruitless attempt to save his sad subordinant, who was possibly trying to make up for his informative and successful scout for which he was damned by the commander. Custer in later years never said a bad word about Reno, and heroically bears the burden of all Great Men: that nobody else was worthy of his leadership.
I really cannot summon the exact sensation I feel when getting into military rank trivia. Michael Sheridan was treated as Sheridan's brother, an invisible but powerful rank. Like TWC.
|
|