|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 22, 2008 3:40:36 GMT -6
I'd be interested to hear your definition of "Custerphile". From the above, I take it that it's anyone who doesn't portray Custer with two horns and a tail?
Jim approached this subject with an open mind, as neither phile nor phobe. If his conclusion after doing the research was that Custer was not a complete idiot, he has the right to that opinion, just as you have the right to whatever yours may be. You do not, I think, have the right to condemn someone as "a male romantic" on no basis other than the mention of a single poem outside the text of the book itself. Had the thing been larded with references to it throughout, you might have a point. It's not, nor with any taint of romanticism, as you yourself remark above. So you're inventing a character for the writer, then criticising the book on the basis of your own invention. Hardly fair, one would have thought.
The Reno/Custer switch is an entertaining ploy, true enough. But "you could and would excuse ..." is a somewhat cheeky assumption, whether it's directed at Gumby alone (which it can't be, surely, as he's given you no reason to imagine that's his attitude) or to all readers of this page. Possibly it could have been spun that way, and no doubt that's the version Custer would have tried to give. Unlikely he'd have got far with it, however. As commander, he'd be held to account more sternly than Reno was, plus in his case there'd be the Major Elliott precedent in everyone's minds; there'd have been a court-martial, the spin would have been unspun, and later generations would have little reason to see him in a better light than that in which we now see Reno. A disgraced ex-hero rather than a disgraced mediocirity; that'd be the only real difference.
Some more trivia to delight you. Mike Sheridan did in fact serve with the regiment briefly, in 1866/7, commanding Co. L at Fort Lyon. There, he clocked up the unenviable distinction of Most Deserters Ever In A Single Day, when something like 40 men and their sergeant decamped en masse. (Maybe he just wasn't cut out to be a company commander, and it was thought he'd do less harm in a staff position; who knows.) Little Phil technically took command of the Department in September 1867, but was on leave until March of the following year. Not sure if he appointed Mike to his staff from the moment of the official handover; nepotism being what it is, I'd imagine he probably did -- in which case Mike would have had just under a year of active service with the regiment before being whisked away to his nice desk job. Not a lot, then, but some ...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 22, 2008 8:55:04 GMT -6
1. A Custerphile is devoted to admiration of Custer and his perceived values, edging towards the homoerotic (and in a few obvious cases.....), with the specific fixations upon excusing his role at LBH. Custer embodies for them all the heroic myths of Europe, from Roland to Arthur, generally because the Custerphile sees a warrior as the apex of his civilization's stock and culture.
At heart is the belief that Custer, while often unorthodox, never lost a fight, and the results of LBH must be explained by betrayal, drunkeness, misinformation perhaps deliberately provided by others or a cosmically huge assemblage of warriors. Custer is a martyr to the values supposedly held by Custerphiles, although the majority are best described as Miniver Cheevy's, fortunately (for them) born too late.
Custerphiles have matured and roll with the times. Today, like Intelligent Design Creationists, they choose to appear logical and fair and base their opinion on 'facts' like their sometimes equally biased and idiotic opponents.
2. Again, E, you insert yourself as champion for someone who doesn't require your presence. Few, least of all me, thinks Custer was an idiot. I think many Custerphiles are absolute, world class, letter sweater idiots, and they project anyone calling them a fool into the falsity that Custer is being thought a fool. No. They don't represent Custer except in their own minds. Not a few re-enactors cross this line. Too many for mental health, in any case.
I've never denied anyone the right to their opinion and state it, so what's your point? That I have no right to comment or even ridicule it? Curious you find "male romantic" a condemnation. Custer was, most of his officers were, especially the young ones were. Edgerly saying "Of course we should have gone" later in life to Graham is the expression of it. No purpose, no chance of success, but 'glory.' Your defense achieves no logic. If he'd dedicated his book to his mother for reading him 'The Wasteland' or 'Mort'de Arthur' and it meant as much you would not be so defensive.
3. "The Reno/Custer switch is an entertaining ploy" and it's not a game or trick. It explodes much condemnation of Reno.
Everything Custer does - now in the Reno role - could be plausibly explained and even praised for the results based solely upon what the Custerphile detects as insights into Custer's character and soul, being so like him themselves and all. Reno - in the role of Custer - could (and come on: surely would) be damned for doing the very things Custerphiles praise Custer for doing. Changing nothing, what appears 'drunk' if Reno does it seems quick witted and necessary if he's blond and named Custer. Since Benteen agreed that going to Reno would be a dead letter, and since Weir (if he would have cared) from Weir Point obtained, on reflection and near misses, the same opinion, it's doubtful that Custer would have been damned.
I have zero further interest in the Sheridans. The General died where we spent our summers, and his memory (or image) was pretty strong about us growing up, good and bad.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 22, 2008 11:37:28 GMT -6
(1) Please provide proof of the similarity between (a) accepting that Custer was on the whole vaguely competent and did nothing militarily without what he saw to be good reason, and (b) homoerotic Custer-worship. I don't see it myself.
Personally, I dislike Custer quite a bit as a person, yet can cheerfully accept that his actions even at LBH may have seemed entirely logical to him at the time. Not everyone who does the same is calling upon Roland/Morte d'Arthur/your other favourites as templates. Yes, these may have shaped later mythology. No, they do not necessarily underly every analysis of the battle that doesn't paint Custer as an incompetent. It is possible to look at his actions without using the air-brush of myth and legend to pretty them up. Why is this so incomprehensible to you?
(2) I don't myself find "male romantic" a condemnation; nor "female romantic" either. No need for the gender definition, in either case. You yourself used it in a way that was plainly intended as condemnatory, which is the only reason I commented.
I don't get your point. Custer is not a fool ... and yet anyone who thinks he's not a fool is a Custerphile ... and anyone objecting to that designation is suffering from mental health issues? Come on. Circular logic at best. Corkscrew-shaped, more likely. As for your right to comment, of course you have that (even though you so frequently deny it to yourself in the case of, e.g., combat veterans -- see your recent posts on other threads); all I question is the soundness of condemning an entire book on the basis of what you extrapolate of the writer's character from an external-to-book dedication. Does he say that poem taught him to revere "glory"? Not at all. You can't, with justice, conclude that. You can only conclude that his mother read him narrative poems. Any mother who read "Casabianca" to her young would almost certainly have read many others too, not least "The Charge of the Light Brigade", with its strong "someone had blundered" message. And that Southey (?) poem about the kid finding bones on the battlefield of Waterloo -- "But what good came of it at last?". Many, many influences. You're straining, I think.
(3) Not really. I know what you're getting at, but we have to be realistic here: Custer would not have got away scot-free from a Reno-style episode. Especially given (a) his track record of leaving people in the lurch and (b) his political difficulties. In any case -- have you considered? surely you have -- there would be no reason to glorify him if he hadn't died. There would be no Custerphiles. His actions would be judged as they were in 1867, but in spades -- a commander abandoning his men to the Indians again, but now in ten times the numbers -- and he'd be condemned accordingly. A live Custer would have been a much more vulnerable figure than a dead one. Whatever the realities of the Weir Point episode, he'd have had a tough time talking himself out of this. Wouldn't have happened. He'd have been toast, whatever spin he'd attempted to put on it. And the army would have been glad to see the back of him, most likely ... Too troublesome by half.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Apr 22, 2008 11:52:03 GMT -6
Believing that Custer was not a complete idiot does not make one a Custerphile. He certainly wasn't. I neither believe as "Wild" and some others do, that Custer was some sort of cavalry genius either. He was certainly courageous, to the point of recklessness in my opinion. I don't believe Custer was a martyr either. At the LBH he made several mistakes that cost him the battle and his life. Some of the mistakes he should have known better than to make, such as his failure to communicate his orders effectively and his failure to coordinate his attacks. Some he could only realize from hindsight, such as the useless Benteen mission to the left and his belief that the Indians would run rather than fight.
I don't blame Reno for abandoning the timber, I defended his decision in the latest Research Review. I don't blame him for not charging the village either. Both were sound decisions based upon the information available to him at the time. His method of leaving the timber was rather poor. He made no effort to protect the rear of his column and allowed the "charge" to become an "every man for himself" movement. Upon reaching the bluffs his duty was to reorganize his command, not traipse around looking for his friend's corpse. Benteen arrived within ten minutes, the pack train within about half an hour after that.
I don't blame him for not going to Custer's aide either. His shattered command was in no condition to do so. Once Benteen arrived they could have made an effort to get back into the fight. The pack train had arrived at least thirty minutes prior to Benteen, Godfrey, and French followed after Weir. Reno attempted to stop this movement by having a trumpeter sound recall. They ignored the trumpet call. Only then did Reno get with the program and start issuing orders for the rest of the command to follow. Neither do I believe that Custer was betrayed by anyone.
Reno's brevet was due more to his in-laws' political connections than to any ability he had. His record was not impressive by any means. He certainly wasn't alone, the Union army had scores of officers that wer promoted far beyond their abilities.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 22, 2008 16:48:13 GMT -6
Just got my first flat screen monitor today in the endless process of glueing together my computers in the update of hardware. Man. Talk about life changing. Affirming, even. In a much better mood.
E,
(1.) I don't either. What are you talking about? I also "cheerfully accept that his actions even at LBH may have seemed entirely logical to him at the time." They do to me up to crossing MTC, when I don't think Custer was in command.
(2) "You yourself used it in a way that was plainly intended as condemnatory, which is the only reason I commented." No, I didn't. The characteristics I describe in a Custerphile is not what you're going on about. I don't think Custer's a fool and have said so a lot. Quite the opposite. Custerphiles are often fools.
Further, I don't condemn an entire book based upon the dedication references. I condemn it as pedestrian because I've read it all. He chose the poem to reference from the shelf load you postulate. I'd have said the same thing if it HAD been the Light Brigade.
(3) It's not a question of "getting away with it", it's an accurate accounting of how the Custerphile would pat it all into shape. Although, you're absolutely correct that his death is necessary. So, pretend he was killed in action leading the charge off Reno Hill on the 26th. The Philes and Phobes existed in his lifetime, and in lesser degree the same arguments would have played out. The Custerphile wants us to believe it's all about Custer, but it's about himself, admitted or not.
Gumby,
I really don't know why this is being transmogrified into someone having said "Custer was an idiot." Nobody has. Custerphiles are, in the main, idiots. There is no connection to Custer.
It again comes down to what Reno knew at the time. We have exact maps and knowledge he did not. Further, Benteen was way ahead of his group. The train took over an hour to come in. And, I ask again: if there was a better way for Reno to abandon surprise and speed in his charge/retreat/fiasco, then someone should show it, diagram it out, time it out, explain likely casualties in horses and men, especially on the last ones out of the timber.
They made preparations to get back into the fight, and they did. If they couldn't do so mounted on offense, what could they do? Divide the command again in the face of the enemy? With one nailed down by wounded and lack of mounts?
The people who cluck-cluck about the Army being wrong about Indians always running seem to be the same to re-insert the old truisms about turning your back on them, they don't fight at night, they won't stand up to a charge, et al. Remember that when explaining how your retreat procedure would result in fewer casualties.
Sheridan's record wasn't all that impressive either till given command of combat troops. He, too, was a staffer. I'm not arguing with you, but Reno's initiative on his Scout and wise decision not to pursue was treated rather shamefully by Terry and Custer both. He did good. Better than anyone else to that point.
He didn't shine on the 25th, but nobody did. And I cannot imagine a drunken Reno surviving.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 23, 2008 9:37:52 GMT -6
I checked out the book from the library yesterday, skimmed parts, and read chapters 15 & 16 plus some of the foot notes regarding the battle. My impression is that he has taken the factual history as he sees it and also footnotes and put it into novel form for reading. I think it is a good read for those wanting to read about what probably happened at the LBH. I don't know enough about the facts to argue those so I'll stay out of that issue. The book will be good for most people who would appreciate the conversational mode. But for the historian in me it is distracting to read about conversation in quotes that somebody said when we know there is no info available to actually record those conversations.
I think the quote on the inside portion of the back of the jacket says it best. "A rare combination of deep scholarship and masterly storytelling." I think for those with a general interest in history who want a good understanding of the battle, it is a great book to read. For those who are studying the minutia of the battle(such as commentators on this board) and who already understand the basic storyline, then the footnotes make good reference material.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 23, 2008 12:22:15 GMT -6
I don't think log rolling reviews by people who always seem to give favorable reviews is much of a recommendation. Custerland is a limited market for many entries, so friends count.
I don't think it's in novel form, either.
Regarding footnotes, one of the complaints against Ward Churchill was that he swamped people with footnotes, by which was generally meant endnotes (Donovan has endnotes), which suffered from several problems. One, he'd write articles or books under different names and cite them as confirming sources, and two, the amount of trivial noted material obscured the fact that much of his contention wasn't sourced at all. Donovan approaches that, but I hate endnotes, being so difficult to reference at need, which in Churchill's case was method.
Donovan states a fact that Reno was probably pretty high in the timber without source, and the sources that appear for other such references were from late blooming stories or from those on the outs with Reno, and the remainder can be posited as looking for an issue deflecting concern from their own actions, although that cannot be proven and I don't necessarily believe. It's suspicious to me the trivia he endnotes compared to that which he does not.
But in any case, he has no new information or account to add, and nobody seems to be in love with the writing, which I think pedestrian.
He correctly diagnoses the Cooke note's issues in the text but in the endnotes claims that Benteen had clearly been ordered to Custer's aid. That is widely disputed by combat vets on both sides of the issue, and in aggregate with Martin's description of how things were going, the note conveys no danger and to state as fact what is not 'taint good.
And not only stuff in quotes, but stuff in quotes in English by people who didn't speak it without any caveat or witness. This is common, though. Even so, he rewrites them, it seems to me, because 'a road we do not know' isn't what he quotes.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 23, 2008 15:14:16 GMT -6
Darkcloud, Nothing personal here, but I don't recall asking you to review my statement about the book. My opinion on what I read is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less, and probably doesn't count for much coming from a neophyte like me. It wasn't worth a response except it got one from someone who has such a deep bias against the book that they look for any and every opportunity to tear it down.
I should have used the term endnotes. Regarding the term novel, I obviously don't have your literary talents, but I only read non-fiction materials and it has been many years since I have read a novel or any other work of fiction and my little ole statement about the book reading like a novel was not worth going to the dictionary to find a better term. I have no idea what you mean by a log rolling review and don't care too but I'm sure it is meant to be a negative.
You are probably the most intelligent, most well read, and probably possess the highest literary talents compared to all the other posters on this board. You are also the most opinionated and biased poster on this board. Somebody posts a theory and you proceed to tear it down. You tear into everyone else's posts and theories, like Mcaryf and others, but unless it is somewhere where I haven't seen it, you have never posted you own theory of the battle, based upon the facts, timelines, and witnesses of your choosing. You like to dish it out but then you hide behind this veil of secrecy regarding your own theory so you don't have to expose yourself and take it coming back at you. Without knowing what theories, timelines, and facts you believe, your destructive posts don't give anyone a rational basis for understanding your negativity. You have this persona of being a negative person about everything and we can't tell why. You have the opportunity to correct this. I respect those who venture forth an opinion or theory who also return respect to those who disagree. You appear to show only disdain and no respect for those you disagree with.
I'd post my theory but I don't really know enough to have developed a full theory. But I am reading this board and a couple books and keeping an open mind and really have alternate possibilities. Fred got me started on some ideas but they need further development.
You, on the other hand, appear to have read about all the books about Custer and have definitive opinions. I know you believe the RCOI and some prior information. The RCOI is not a battle theory and doesn't explain everything. I challenge you to be and do something constructive and post your own theory over on the battle theory threads instead of the destructive cross examination you do of others. Teach me and others what your theories, timelines, and facts you are relying upon. A lot of people come to this board to learn something and you could be a great teacher and a positive role model if you wanted to. Who knows, I have enough of an open mind that I may even agree with you.
Again, nothing personal here. I expect that you are going to respond to this by ravaging me in a destructive way with your literary abilities but I cannot match you word for word in such a manner so it won't do any good for me to respond back or argue with you. I've said my piece and am at peace, nothing more, nothing less, for what it's worth(FWIW).
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 23, 2008 16:46:54 GMT -6
A tad oversensitive and odd, BC. It's the WEB, so you don't get to disallow comment on your postings. You expressed an opinion, I expressed mine. Further, much of what you accuse me of is nonsense.
I don't have any bias against the book or the writer, of whom I know nothing, but this work isn't very good, and it is biased. Examples at the end.
It requires none of my dubious talents - I rarely read novels anymore - to question your observation that it was written as a novel, beyond the note that it is fiction in places. If mere, lonely I can tear down a theory, it's either a theory with no actual friends or it has no ballast.
I don't hide my theory. That's a bogus charge. It just isn't very detailed nor is it exciting, nor is it requiring computer analysis. It's not even really mine, originally, and I've been criticized for boring people with it. It's terribly simple.
It explains simply the field as found with a plausible scenario. Custer tried to go across at MTC with all five companies, because whatever his goal was - support of Reno, mere destruction, going for the non-coms - that was the quickest way to do so, through the 'empty' village. He wouldn't pass that up, regardless of numbers because they always ran, don't we know. That's the move of the Custer history knows, with Benteen coming up as prudent and entering in, keeping the train protected.
I think A Custer, maybe THE Custer, was wounded by the river, and the actual command structure of carefully nourished nepotism took charge away from the official structure, getting away from danger as they saw it to high ground to the east, the most plausible reason for Custer to end up furthest away from the village. (Who thinks a Custer would leave a brother to the Sioux? Hands? Not the same hands. Someone? Anyone?)
Keogh's group, last in line down MTC, declined to be caught in a gully when initial action bunched the group in the vulnerable flats, and exited out to the rear, running parallel to Yates' men, both of whom would periodically set lines soon over run, and those making it to the top of LSH being blown out of their saddles by unexpected greeters, explaining the preponderance of officers at the top and not in the middle of a defense they'd be leading. Very quick and vicious. Keogh may never have known what happened and why they were heading away from the village.
This is easier to see when you redo LSH to what photo and testimony tell us was there on the 28th. There is a line of stakes down to Keogh's area. There are ten less markers, and Reed and Boston way down. Lonely and thin.
What accounts resound about artifact and sightings of soldiers north of there were simply the warriors riding in formation with guidons and uniforms who fooled Weir, Terry's guys, and the Cheyenne themselves when they rode into the village. Not implausibly, the corrected story never fully made the rounds that they were other Indians. Those warriors-as-soldiers shed, by their own description, articles they didn't want as they rode. Also? The Crows fought the army there some years later, plus periodic desecrations and salutes, and there is no way an artifact can be ID'd beyond manufacture before the battle or after. Those made before would be used for decades after the fact, including ammo, so there's no way to tell from artifact who did what when and where to who else.
There is no way to meld the times, and all that, and I don't try, because it doesn't really matter. It isn't destructive. I've said the miasma of detail preferred by Custerphiles tends to obscure - their hope, conscious or not - the more obvious near sureties. Few actually want to do it, and discover what we all suspect: it was a sloppy battle, terrifying, not long lasting. I find all the formal deployments and tactical manuevering that some propose highly implausible because the 7th wasn't that well trained, would be pointless in surround variations, was too quick, and it rings about as true as them breaking into a medley of showtunes for their exits.
I have only read a small percentage of Custer books, which breed like bathtub mold and are generally about as interesting. That's still a fair amount, but there are only about ten books worth anything, maybe twenty and depending on mood, liquor consumption, how many reality shows before the news at 10.
You overstate my positions. I don't believe the RCOI is God's truth, but what error and vagueness I see in it is of the same I see in other trials, combined with a bi-polar nitwit in Recorder Lee. What I say is: cut all stories that appear after 1879, an arbitrary date. You lose some great stories and some sure truth, but you lose most of the nonsense.
I'm an old man and always glad to talk about my opinions, which are correct, and to denigrate yours, which couldn't possibly be correct, or else I'd hold them.
Now, class (hey, that's your scenario.....) turn to page 251 of "A Terrible Glory." Up top: "Boston pointed out to Martin that his horse was limping. Then, anxious not to miss the action, he dashed down the ravine after his brothers." Oh, brave boy!
First, you really don't have to tell a rider his horse is limping. Horses install a vertebrae shattering gait to call that to your attention. But then, I don't think this took place, because it only appeared decades after the fact when Cooke's note appeared, and the story of the rider who delivered it appeared. Previously, it was Benteen who pointed out that his horse was shot, and Martin had thought his horse tired, and both accounts agreed at the RCOI. And, he'd said 'brothers' at the RCOI, which is of a piece. These are real issues, but Donovan continues, same page:
"Boston Custer galloped up soon after, bearing good news. He had passed Benteen's battalion on the lodgepole trail less than an hour before, and the pack train had been only about a mile behind. The courier Martin was making good time on the back trail and would likely deliver the message safely."
First, Boston 'galloped', a factor in time, Martin was making good time (with an already limping horse, later revealed care of a bullet wound?) and would likely deliver the message safely. Based upon what does Donovan assume that? The faux meeting was at the beginning of Martin's jaunt with an already limping horse.
Then Curly. He wants to get rid of Curly's accounts, and he does this by setting up the straw man of Curly claiming to have been at the battle and escaping. Curly never originally said that, and it was inserted for him, and not knowing which way to go, he probably started knowingly telling the lie for prestige and newspaper money. Donovan cherry picks the tale and concludes with Curly not viewing the battle alone but with the Rees going back up Reno Creek. Oh, and Donovan doesn't seem to realize MTC WAS Reno Creek early on, and may be totally confused.
Donovan believes photobug Curtis' tale, although he describes the Crows firing from two peaks with a sugarloaf between (the original Weir Point, it sounds like) when the photos show them in reenactment a good ways north of Weir Point. He doesn't mention that the Crows thought Custer deserted Reno and had watched that fight for a long time, and he seems pretty vague about 'bluffs' and where specifically he thinks events happened. Read page 440, and see if you think he might have MTC/Reno Creek confused. In which case, Curly's tale is more or less fine.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 1, 2008 14:04:23 GMT -6
Darkcloud--
I am responding to your post under the "PANIC" thread regarding the Donovan book. I think you are over-reacting somewhat, especially in the way you are taking on "RCH."
I have reached the point in my "Custer" life where I have lost all control over my eye-rolling with most of these new books. The books are "new," the subject matter is not and the "facts" are equally hoary. Donovan's book is no less rife with errors than most others and his prejudices no less rampant than so many others. There is a clear dislike of Benteen that permeates virtually every comment about the man, but I am beyond that, as well. To me, you have nailed the cause, though I'm not sure you've married it with the subject. People who have never been in combat or mortal danger as a soldier will never fully understand a man like Benteen. It is to your lasting credit that you recognize this. I would, however, be a little more charitable by cutting "RCH" some slack when he says good soldiers are not necessarily all combat heroes. Not everyone can have the fortune or misfortune to serve in combat and so we do the best we can with the cards we have been dealt. Believe me when I tell you, you discover a lot about yourself when the pings fly overhead. I certainly did.
The pre-publication huzzahs became clearer to me when I read the post-scripts, but I attribute all that to owning a small stake in the nag; you can't claim the purse, but you have the satisfaction of loving a winner. At the risk of "who-gives-a-rat's-ass," I will admit-- only to you!!-- that was a bit disconcerting to me when I cracked the spine.
I also agree with your assessment of Donovan's writing style (I think you called it "pedestrian"; I referred to it as "plain vanilla"), but again, to cut the man some slack, I think that may have been his purpose. If it wasn't, it should have been, for this is a rather decent "starter" book, akin to Son of the Morning Star and a few others. I was rather disappointed in the build-up regarding "newspaper" articles and his RCOI stuff, however. I think I expected more. And as for context, Donovan certainly didn't do any worse than anyone else. I find it exceptionally difficult to yank certain blurbs out of a statement and maintain any context whatsoever when it comes to this battle or even the people involved. I learned that after I read Nichols' RCOI stuff last summer. I do not know what can be done about that issue other than to enlarge the quotes dramatically, and maybe a superb researcher/writer would do that. There is too much lost with simple "this-proves-my-point" quoting. In some regards, I understand your use of the word "sleaze," but again, I think that may be too harsh. It implies intent, intent to deceive, and I don't think we can honestly deduce that from Donovan himself.
I give the book high marks as a so-called "starter," but if we were to move it into the mainstream "research" or "source" work, I would be much more critical. I would be most critical if Donovan were to maintain that his book was an "analysis." I, personally, hold that category to the highest standards and I have found none that I have ever read that I would consider even better than a mere "okay."
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 2, 2008 6:30:38 GMT -6
Fred:
In the end does this book "reveal" anything knew or is it the author's opinion based on "resources"?
Apparently the most interest to some is the "cover-up" of RCOI and whether Reno was drunk before, during, after his attack
For some with more than basic knowledge does it reveal the "mystery" of the LBH?
What does this book tell us?
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 2, 2008 7:46:50 GMT -6
Horse--
"Darkcloud" is a lot more critical than I am and I mean that as an avocation as opposed to an opinion. Like I said, I consider it a very good "starter" book. Like everyone, Donovan has his prejudices and I completely disagree with his characterization of Benteen. Donovan also pushes a lot of "evidence" of Reno's supposed drunkenness in front of the reader and he makes a rather damning case against Reno because of it. A neophyte would believe him and I have a problem with that.
If he has discovered a cover-up in his RCOI work, it has to deal with Reno's actions and condition rather than the old Pennington frat party that has everyone conspiring to let Custer fend for himself, hell and high water be damned. If you go back to the original posts regarding this book, you were led to believe-- at least I felt I was-- that there was tremendous new stuff uncovered, newspaper, RCOI snippets, and the like, that shed new light on the character and actions of so many individuals involved in the event. I did not find that the case. There is a lot of research here, that's for sure, but again, Darkcloud has hit-- rather poignantly, I feel-- a rather raw nerve that can apply to a lot of these kinds of books. I don't know how to solve that problem, however, because we all have our own little prejudices and when we don't agree with a particular issue or opinion, we all come out on the attack. Darkcloud does that here, and to a certain extent, I think he is justified.
Donovan doesn't sanctify Custer-- not by any stretch of the imagination-- but he does damn Benteen-- sometimes by faint praise-- and he pillories Reno. If Donovan had accorded Reno as much graciousness in his actions in the valley as he does innuendo or criticism for his booze-nipping, then we would be more rightly served. I was led to believe the RCOI stuff was rather revealing; instead, I was a bit disappointed. I really saw nothing I hadn't seen before or suspected.
It does not reveal any mystery, but then, to me, only a book that analyzes the battle or presents new and controversial "research"-- Gray and Fox come to mind in this category-- will go to revealing anything new. Donovan's is far from that.
Like I said, this is an enjoyable book-- though dangerous, i.e., Reno-- that gives us very good character studies, great endnotes that, to me, are interesting reading in themselves without referrals back to the text. I feel Darkcloud is a little too harsh in his criticism, but again, his standards may be higher than mine here, the difference being that I found a lot of useful information.
It's worth the money... to me.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 2, 2008 9:02:50 GMT -6
I've just bought this, but have not yet read it.
I recall seeing that a new edition of the RCOI report has just been published (not the Stackpole version). Is this my imagination, or can someone tell me where I can get this? I've looked on Amazon, but there was no mention of it.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 2, 2008 9:53:24 GMT -6
Gary--
From what I can remember, it is the same Nichols version, only hardcover. Bound, in other words, something that won't fall apart when you open the cover.
Try Upton: rupton1@socal.rr.com
Failing that, try Sandy Barnard: SandyB1@AOL.com
I would also be very interested in your opinion of the Donovan book.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by clw on May 2, 2008 11:05:04 GMT -6
Pedestrian view... I spent several pleasant evenings reading it.
|
|