|
Post by fred on Oct 15, 2007 10:21:29 GMT -6
Ground Rules: Not many. I will number the threads to keep them in some semblance of order. Please use this thread only for suggestions. I intend to start as follows:
1. May 17, 1876 to June 21, 1876. The route. The strategy and coordination. Intelligence. Expectations. Proper changes? Bungling? Reno’s recon. The results. 2. June 22, 1876. Orders, conversations, Terry’s plans, the Seventh moves, the first findings. What was the significance of each?
Threads after that will be for each day until we reach the 25th. Then we will assess where we are and where we should head next.
Please, keep it civil. I will delete anything I think is at cross-purposes to what “Jas. Watson,” whose idea prompted this thing, and Diane intended. From my point of view, I am interested in several things: (1) drawing people into the discussion, not chasing them away. This should be a learning tool for all of us. (2) Theory: I love it. Every theory is welcome. Speculation, as well. (3) Facts and data: if there was ever a place to air that stuff out, here it is.
Are we missing anything? I will post the thread as soon as I get some feedback.
Best wishes to all, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 15, 2007 10:28:36 GMT -6
A question: do we have to go in chronological sequence? Or can we jump in with something re a particular date, regardless?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 15, 2007 10:58:35 GMT -6
Okay, it appears from the very onset that we would like an immediate 39-thread series, 1 for each day. (I will save the 40th, plus, for various time-frames of June 25.)
Is this the way you would prefer it?
And yes, Gordon, the frivolities will be directed elsewhere or just flatout deleted. All it will take is 2 votes or me.
I will give this a day to air out so we get the input of more than just a couple of people.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 15, 2007 11:03:17 GMT -6
What if someone misses a day? Do we go back and make a comment or just continue with the current day?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 15, 2007 11:09:01 GMT -6
Horse--
You could go back if I establish 39 threads... or even if I don't. These things seem to have a life of their own and once the subject matter dies down, you never see anything new in them again.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Oct 15, 2007 11:40:19 GMT -6
Not to throw a monkey-wrench into anything . . . but how about the Indians and their time line?
Afterall both sides' moves culminated on June 25.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Oct 15, 2007 12:47:11 GMT -6
I'm thinking the Indian side would be most useful in the context of what was happening simultaneously with the cavalry if it provides supporting or clarifying information. The instances where it needs a separate thread should be few and will probably become aparent as things unfold.
On the other hand, maybe we're investigating only the army view here. If so I promise to read quietly in the background, soak it all up and hope for a chance to say something not completely inane. ;D
I do think this whole concept is a great idea!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 15, 2007 13:02:10 GMT -6
clw--
No, you are correct, and I have already begun to integrate the whole thing (check out the "May 27" thread). The Indians are part and parcel and must be included. I am just trying to prod things along somewhat.
Best wishes, Your friendly Moderator
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Oct 15, 2007 21:27:29 GMT -6
This board is very impressive, Fred. I really appreciate your taking this on. You've obviously put a lot of thought into it.
All, as the threads increase in number, remember to scroll down the list (or, eventually, look at the next page) to see if "new" is in front of a thread, meaning there's a reply you haven't read yet. ("New" will appear only if you are logged onto the boards.) Normally, a reply will send a thread to the top of the list but, with the threads pinned in chronological order, you may miss an active thread if you don't view the whole list.
Excellent, Fred, excellent! Thank you very much!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 16, 2007 5:11:57 GMT -6
Diane--
Thank you. Now let's see what this leads to.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 16, 2007 8:34:29 GMT -6
Needless to say, I'm dubious about all this. I don't quite get the goal, or how this differs from other threads. I suspect this is the illustrative example of how too much detail serves to obscure.
Nevertheless, since you have advantage of virginity, thread wise, I suggest that a Glossary of Terminology be established and the moderator enforce it. Campaign, strategy, Indians vs. warriors, casualties (dead, wounded, missing, captured), chief, etc. Nobody then used them the same way, but I don't see the need to replicate that confusion. There are other words as well it would be best to define and stick to.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 16, 2007 9:58:56 GMT -6
Darkcloud--
I agree with you. Give me some more examples of what you would like defined. I will put together a list, give my interpretation, and present it to you. I will make the necessary changes, then you tell me how you would like that employed, and we shall do it. Nice idea.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 16, 2007 11:33:31 GMT -6
I'm sure you can think of the issue words as well or better than I. As I say, the desired result of this isn't clear to me, but it would be annoying to have to backtrack and clarify definitions.
Volleys. The various ways 'Custer' is used in Indian accounts. Geographic names. "White" horses. Testimony. Orders vs. instructions or exhortations.
My point being the campaign did NOT begin on May 17. Only the Terry column's portion of it began. The campaign would be said to have started when the first column started out, probably Gibbon but maybe Crook.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 18, 2007 5:48:49 GMT -6
Just as a word of caution here...
Please try to stick to facts, obscure or well-known, on this particular series of threads. That is the original intention. The only place where we should entertain a discussion of opinion is in the comparison of the orders given to Reno for his June 10 scout, and the orders given Custer on June 22. Even that issue I would like to see limited to a series of fact-driven responses. Everything else, for each day, should be fact-driven rather than opinion-driven. If it cannot be fully substantiated-- by eye-witness testimony or by logic-driven authorship as a result of some event-- please post it on the normal threads. That's the difference between the two "sections."
If I have given you or left you with the wrong impression, I apologize for the oversight, but I have gotten a couple of private complaints saying we seem to be straying from the original intent. That intent is best summarized as follows:
"... a chronological analysis of the events..." -- Diane Merkel.
Simply put, that means: (1) a stating of an event; then, (2) a discussion of that event within the context of its surroundings, to date, not beyond.
If anyone is still confused, please PM me. Thanks.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 18, 2007 10:10:58 GMT -6
To all--
Please check out the last thread and give me your comments as to its accuracy.
Thanks and best wishes, Fred.
|
|