|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 24, 2007 8:30:36 GMT -6
Thanks, Gordie. Carroll dabbled with different angles of the LBH story that most people wouldn't consider, and they add an interesting aspect to the whole story. I know he had a handwriting expert analyze the signatures of various men at LBH. The results are in one of the many books I've always meant to read.
Thanks for the story and the link, Elisabeth. Exploring Libbie's life in Florida is one of the many things I hope to do someday. I live quite a way from Jacksonville (five hour drive) but I hope to track down where she lived. That story added another place to go. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 24, 2007 8:39:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 24, 2007 10:22:11 GMT -6
Thanks. In case you haven't seen it, here is what the handwriting analyst said about Keogh's signature. I'd be interested to know if you think she hit the mark. From The Custer Autograph Album by John Carroll, pp. 105: He was an intellectual who may also have had spiritual interests. He liked to be in charge. He was not talkative. He was moderately restrained in his emotions. He had physical energy. He liked details. He preferred logic to intuition.
The high "l" shows the intellect and interest in spiritual matters. The loop at the beginning of the capital "M" shows a certain bossiness. His closed "o" shows that he was close-mouthed. His lower case "g" and "y" show strength. The carefully formed letter "r" shows the interest in details. The linking of all of the letters in a word shows his logical manner of thinking. The interesting thing to me is that she mistook the "e" in Keogh for a "carefully formed letter 'r'" and there is no indication in Carroll's introduction that he caught it although he comments on several others. In the clipped signature the graphologist examined, Keogh formed his "e" as a miniature capital "E" so I can see why she thought it was a small "r" instead. It does look like "Krogh" -- perhaps prophetic of Crow!
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 24, 2007 12:38:34 GMT -6
Ah, that was his classical education at work, I think; he did have a penchant for using the Greek "e" -- sort of like this: ∑ -- every so often. I've noticed that several of his contemporaries with similar backgrounds do the same. Whether it was showing off, or had simply become second nature, it's hard to tell. (Especially with Keogh, who, much as I love him, was certainly not immune to showing off!)
That's a very interesting analysis. The "I" stuff seems good; whether an "intellectual" I wouldn't like to say, but he did certainly think beyond his day-to-day concerns -- e.g. taking the Pope to task for limiting rights of Protestant worship in Rome, and so on. And he mixed on equal terms with intellectuals (e.g. the Martin family, Dr. Ouchterlony, nice Dr. Turner who discovered the first fossil in Kansas, etc.), so I don't think she's wrong there. My only hesitation is that he shows signs of a somewhat limited imagination. At one point he writes to his brother Tom about his dreams and ambitions for the family, and from his language you expect something pretty elevated -- but it boils down to wishing his sisters could have ("and not be considered extravagant for having") a carriage of their own in which to pay calls! Still, he's a practical man, in a practical job, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised ...
The "M": well, definitely. He cheerfully bosses Custer around in his early days in the 7th. No dispute about that. And the "o": my goodness, yes. Researchers have been bemoaning this particular characteristic for years. My own impression, from various descriptions, is that he was talkative enough -- no doubt rattling away at a great rate, and entertaining everyone -- but that the close-mouthedness operated fully wherever he had, or even thought he had, something to conceal. He could keep quiet when he needed to. Two examples: in 1866, he writes to his brother telling him that the woman he'd wanted to marry has died -- but even to his own favourite brother, he doesn't reveal her name or any details. (It's taken later researchers a LOT of work to find out who she was.) And, just before the LBH expedition sets off, he writes to Nelly Martin saying he's been asked to be shipped back to her home town of Auburn if he's killed -- yet he clearly hasn't told his supposed "best friend" in the regiment, Nowlan, as on July 15th he's writing to Keogh's sister with the suggestion that Keogh should be buried in Louisville. And there's the secrecy about his Louisville bequest. He leaves Dr. Ouchterlony an attache case of papers to be passed on "to the party he knows of": even in death, he's not prepared to reveal the name of whoever his Louisville lady was.
If you ever see copies of his letters, you're sure to be struck by the clarity of thought behind them. Hardly ever a crossing-out or correction; soldierly decisiveness throughout. And utterly straight lines. Every sign of a focused mind.
One thing which he shares with Custer is a particular flourish on the capital "C" -- especially when it stands for "Cavalry". And there's some interesting (if maybe slightly scary) insight in a very blotted and messy document that was apparently his rough draft for his bid for a post-war commission. (It's in the NLI archive, so probably now in the Autry Museum.) A lot of it is almost unreadable; but the words that stand out, FAR more clearly written than the others, are things like "kill" and "attack". And in his early reports from Fort Wallace (someone kindly let me see copies) he tends to use a capital "K" for "kill" when talking about killing Indians. Only a psychologist could work that out, perhaps. Is it a word that especially attracts him? Or does he regard the deed as so morally significant that it deserves a capital letter? Who knows ...
It's really great to have this Carroll stuff. Thanks, Diane!!! I vaguely knew it existed, but had assumed it would be the same info as appears in the Upton's (Langellier/Cox/Pohanka) biography. That kind of reinforces the same reading, while going into a lot more detail -- though capable of ambiguous interpretations, as they point out. (E.g. qualities that sound positive at first reading could be criticisms. Such as for "passionate", read "has a temper".)
Overall, I'd think Carroll's autograph lady wasn't far off the mark. Great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 24, 2007 15:11:54 GMT -6
Below is the signature that was examined, which I should have included earlier. You can see why she thought the "E" was an "r" and I see what you mean about those capital "C"s! (If the dotted lines look a little off, it's because of my sloppy scanning. The lines are straight in the book, p. 104.)
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 25, 2007 5:56:15 GMT -6
Absolutely. He's so inconsistent in his use of the normal "e" and the Greek "∑" that no wonder she was thrown; one of each even in this short signature. I've yet to work out the logic, if any, of when he uses which.
What does she make of Benteen's amazing handwriting? I suppose his signature's a little less idiosyncratic than the bulk of his writing, so she mightn't have had full data to work from ... One would guess at something like "stubborn, individualistic, strong, imaginative, artistic", perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 25, 2007 22:08:25 GMT -6
Good guess! From page 119: Benteen was a very enthusiastic man. He had a flamboyance and an egotism which showed an originality of mind. He insisted on things being done his way. He could be quite stubborn at times, but his charm influenced people who excused his eccentricities.
The long, sweeping "t" bar shows enthusiasm and flamboyance. His large, ornate capital letters show his originality and egotism. Letters becoming larger at the end of his name are a sign of bluntness, and the "t" stem forming a triangle at the base is stubbornness. His arcade "n's" (looking like "w's" and "u's") show charm.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 26, 2007 0:15:38 GMT -6
That's very, very good. The "enthusiasm" is something that does come through a lot in his letters -- a kind of joie de vivre that nothing can suppress. The "charm" is a really useful insight. We get a faint sense of that from Hugh L. Scott's "I found my model early" description, and from some of the photos, but mostly it's been swamped by all the controversy over his role. Useful to bear in mind.
Does she cover Nowlan? ------ Sorry, I mustn't ask you to reproduce the whole book here! Just that he's such a shadowy figure; so little of his personality comes across. One's first impression is of kind of a Dr. Watson to Keogh's Holmes -- well-meaning, but a dull old stick. I suspect that's wrong, and that there's a good deal more to him than that ... but whether we'll ever know what, who can tell. It'd be great if the autograph lady has given us any clues ...
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 26, 2007 0:35:04 GMT -6
I don't mind supplying these at all, so ask away. I'll be traveling tomorrow (actually later today) but have decided to take the book with me because it is so interesting. I'll be able to answer further queries from the road, if you wish. This one is really interesting. From page 89: Nowlan was a very determined man. He could be brutal at times. He had a good intellect and did not always have his mind on everyday, mundane matters. He could be extremely talkative at times. He was quite demonstrative at times. He wanted to appear to be kinder than he actually was. He insisted, vehemently, on being in charge. He could resort to physical violence when angered, yet there was a spiritual side to his nature.
The heaviness of his writing shows his determination, occasional brutality, resorting to physical violence. The "l" which is very high, shows his intellectual bent and sometimes interest in spiritual matters. He has two very open "a's" showing a talkative streak. The right-hand slant shows emotionalism. His signature is less angular than his title, showing his attempt to seem kinder than he was. His capital "N" has a large loop at the top, signifying bossiness. Because his middle zone letters, "W, n, l" for example are small and the upper and lower zones are long, his interest in everyday affairs was not always great.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 26, 2007 4:07:14 GMT -6
Wow. That IS fascinating. Thank you!
Sgt. Ryan tells a story that hints at the brutality/determination/physical violence. If I remember correctly, it's when the 7th's camped outside Fort Hays, and some thievery has been going on. Nowlan goes after one of the thieves and shoots him dead on the spot. Ryan makes it sound pretty cold-blooded, and adds that "nothing was ever said about it" or words to that effect. You do get the feeling, from that, of a man you wouldn't want to cross ...
That stuff about not always having his mind on everyday matters is MOST interesting in view of his Quartermaster role. Roger Darling, in Custer's Seventh Cavalry Comes to Dakota, nominates him as the unsung hero of the Dakota transfer, and gives the impression that he got absolutely everything right at all times. Yet there's the hint that it was something wrong in the QM's Dept., rather than just the complaints about Custer, that led to Sturgis's bizarre flying visit. And many rude things have been said on these boards about the supply situation on the LBH expedition: things like the non-appearing horses, the shortage of aparejos as opposed to ordinary pack saddles, and the loony decision to use troopers as mule-packers rather than hire a decent quota of professionals. Perhaps he really didn't have the concentration and the eye for detail that the job required.
Wonder if the nasty streak was the reason why nothing ever came of his engagement? Perhaps the fiancee discovered it, and bailed out. It could also cast some light on his involvement at Wounded Knee. And -- could he have been spotted early on as temperamentally unsuited to be in command of men, hence his removal to the commissary/QM role? (If so, tough luck on the poor guys in Co. I once he inherited it.)
The part about wanting to appear kinder than he actually was is especially intriguing. Food for thought there.
Two more that would be really interesting (since you've been kind enough to volunteer!). Lt. Porter is another man about whom we know virtually nothing, personality-wise; if he's covered, it'd be great to know the verdict. And, of course, poor old Weir. We get glimpses of him at various points in the Custer story, but they seem wildly contradictory -- so perhaps the autograph lady can solve the conundrum!
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 28, 2007 10:42:46 GMT -6
James Ezekiel Porter, page 109: He was very old-fashioned. He had an excellent mind. He had spiritual qualities and he was altruistic. He was quite reserved, deliberately. He was less modest than he wanted to appear to be. He was quite sensitive. He could be tactful. The intellect was more important to him than the physical side of life. He was intuitive.
The letter formations, especially the "p," are very old style. His "l's," "t's" and other upper zone letters are very high, showing the good intellect and the spiritual qualities. The end stroke of the lower zone letters, such as the "y" turning to the left rather than the right, show his altruism. The writing is upright and there is effort in keeping it from slanting to the right, showing the intentional reserve. His capitals in his signature are lower than the capitals in the rest of his words, showing that he was not really modest. The looped "t" stem shows the sensitivity. The breaks between letters show that he was intuitive. The upper zone letters on one line tangle with the lower zone of the line above, showing that the mind was more valuable to him than the body.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 28, 2007 11:24:59 GMT -6
Diane, thanks so much for this. These self-effacing qualities help explain why we seem to know so little about him. (Could the "old-fashioned" letter formations be not just his personality, but because he comes from Maine? Not intending to be state-ist or anything, but I could kind of imagine older forms being stuck to by Maine schoolmasters long after everyone else had embraced newer ones ...)
Sounds as if he and Keogh will have been a good pairing -- both brainy, both spiritual, both capable of restraint, but with Porter adding a bit of sensitivity and intuition that isn't (here) listed among Keogh's qualities. They seem to have jogged along together very happily from 1872, when Porter joined Co. I, to the end. Co. I struck lucky there, I think.
Tragic irony that his self-effacement should extend even to his corpse ...
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 28, 2007 11:29:17 GMT -6
I wish I could scan Weir's signature clip but I'm not able to now. It's difficult to decipher, but I think the entire clip reads: "I am, Very Resplty, Your Obt Srv, Thos B. Weir, 1st Lt 7th U.S. Cav." I'm sure it was supposed to be "Respectfully" but it appears as a clumsy abbreviation as represented above as closely as I can tell. It appears that the graphologist has mistaken his fancy "S" as a "g" because -- although the abbreviated "servant" isn't as clear -- he clearly was writing "U.S. Cav." in the last line, which is one of two places the "8" appears. No doubt the last line of the analysis will lead to more speculation!
Thomas Bell Weir, p. 153:
He was creative, cultured, literary. He was quite emotional. He was tactful. He was very active physically. He was enthusiastic.
The wavy line in the "V" and "T" show creativity. The Greek "e" shows an interest in culture. His "g" written like an "8" shows literary ability. The extreme right slant in the writing shows strong and demonstrated emotions. His long lower loops show great physical activity. Letters dwindling in size at the end of a word show tact. His sweeping "t" bar shows enthusiasm. He was probably a romantic, with a fondness for the ladies.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 28, 2007 12:05:31 GMT -6
"Respectfully" got all sorts of strange abbreviations -- most usually "Resptly", but many variations thereupon.
She's good, though, this woman. There's anecdotal evidence for the creativity/literary ability: someone, I forget who, recounts Weir saying bizarrely of the ghastly corpses, "wouldn't it make a fine subject for a poem?". Even allowing for natural displacement activity in the face of such horror, this sounds like a man who's used to thinking in creative/literary terms. And the "fondness for the ladies": whatever his feelings for Libbie may or may not have been, Annie Roberts' diary shows him pursuing her assiduously ... easy to imagine he pursued many others too. No doubt the "strong and demonstrated emotions" were quite a help to him in that!
Intriguing, that Greek "e" again ...
|
|