|
Post by mcaryf on Nov 26, 2007 4:36:38 GMT -6
Hi Elisabeth
Does that mean you are confirming that Godfrey did not use the word "again" and that one of the authors has chosen to insert it?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by erkki on Nov 26, 2007 7:32:47 GMT -6
Elisabeth is right. Godfrey does not say they watered "again" in the original. Trust no one--even the most respectable authors can fall into sincerely believed error. I once threw Allan Nevins Ordeal of the Union across the room, and a major prof. told me he had done the same with Macauley....
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2007 7:55:01 GMT -6
As long as poking holes is OK ... how does Liddic derive an "again" from Godfrey's diary entry? As far as I can see, he doesn't mention any previous watering that day: just the scout, the return to the trail, and then, "soon after we passed the old village camp we watered our horses". Stewart adds a footnote saying: "Most accounts say that the horses were watered before the site of the old village was reached", so there's a choice here between deciding that Godfrey was wrong or that there were two watering halts -- but I can't find that Godfrey actually says there were two. Elisabeth-- It is not that I don't agree with you, but the quote is actually out of Stewart, simply reiterated by Liddic. I don't have that book-- or any "Field Diary" by Godfrey himself-- so all I personally can go by is the "Century" article (and I must admit, I haven't read it yet; it's first on "the pile," right before Terry's field diary, right before Graham!) So I guess my question now becomes, was Stewart the editor of Godfrey's "diary" or is that just the name of a book by Stewart? A couple of other things to keep in mind are Mike's comment about sound: I agree with him regarding single shots versus continued firing; and, the fact there are clearly two sites (and sets) of "lone tepees." To my mind that is not even a moot issue any more. I think it is absolutely clear even though there is no specific allusion to a second sighting of tepees in anything I have read. I simply interpret that to mean the first "group" or tepee meant absolutely nothing. This was probably the one(s) Varnum saw from the Crow's Nest, but it is not the one(s) referred to in most of the RCOI testimony. I must admit I am finding this increasingly daunting and I have been slapped into the reality of realizing I do not know as much as I thought I did. That's a humbling experience, let me tell you. It has also taught me to trust less and less of what I read (interpretive) and rely more and more on what participants said... but within context, for even that is misleading and oftentimes wrong. (I am going to have to start taking better care of myself so I can live long enough to see this thing through!) I may also add that I have just finished the Tom Heski article, "Don't Let Anything Get Away," in the latest Research Review. I spoke to Bill Boyes (the editor) recently, and he considers Heski the leading "researcher" or authority on the "up to and through Davis Creek to the divide" area. The article waffles a bit, quotes an awful lot of people, and also deals with the specifics of routes, ad infinitum, but is generally very well done and it raises huge questions also seemingly discarded by other writers. Heski warns of this, using a caveat that we know so much more today than we did years ago, but I think he may have just been gracious here. His analysis of everything up to the crossing of the divide falls into the same exploratory questioning I am now finding myself with, (1) more than one morass; (2) more than one "lone tepee"; (3) local sun versus St. Paul time; (4) gunfire from 7 miles versus gunfire from 3 miles away; (5) Crow's Nest versus "Varnum's Lookout"; (6) 1 versus 2 trips to the Crow's Nest; (7) who authorized the move from Halt ?; (8) was there a Halt 3 as now appears somewhat likely?; (9) where was Gerard?; (10) why did Custer turn?; (11) Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by erkki on Nov 26, 2007 8:08:08 GMT -6
Godfrey's field diary was edited by Stewart, whom I regard as a trustworthy editor.
About that sound: it was a very hot day and sound does not travel well in hot, dry air. Standing on the bluff across from Garryowen on a similar day, I could not hear the train passing along the tracks below me. Unless you can replicate the exact same conditions, you can only speculate. That puts you right back to would have, could have, should have, might have, must have - conditional verbal constructions that have no place in serious history.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2007 9:04:13 GMT -6
erkki--
I agree with you on each point, including Stewart, but I would still like to know who inserted that word: "again."
I also do not think we will ever come to anything better than a 50-50 split on the sound, though my gut tells me that even at 7 miles, one could hear constant, sustained firing. I am going to start the Godfrey "booklet" today (in between our personal stuff).
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 26, 2007 10:18:53 GMT -6
Fred, Fred,
I don't have Liddic, so can't check if it was him -- but there's definitely no "again" in that passage of the Field Diary. Nor even an implied "again" via any mention of an earlier watering halt.
What Godfrey says re watering, in full, on that page is: "soon after we passed the old village camp we watered our horses. This was about 2 o'clock pm. After we watered we continued our march very leisurely. -- not long after watering the trumpeter brought the note from Col. Cook above noted (in brackets) and we increased our gait."
I suppose someone reading it very quickly could gain the impression he's taking about separate occasions here, but I think it's plain he isn't. Stewart does point out in his footnotes that Godfrey gets the sequence of events a bit confused on this page (p. 11) and the next: (a) as you'll gather from Godfrey's reference to "in brackets", he's already mentioned Cooke's note earlier in this passage, and (b) he reverses the sequence of Kanipe's and Martini's arrivals. So the fact that he mentions only one watering halt doesn't prove conclusively that there wasn't another. But he doesn't say there was here.
Possibly there's something in one of Godfrey's other accounts that's led Liddic to extrapolate that meaning for this passage? But yes, I think erkki's hit the spot: "trust no-one"!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2007 12:22:45 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
I'm at something of a loss here because I don't have the Field Diary. I am, however, becoming extremely tired of reading these guys who seem to fit testimony to their own ideas of what happened. I've never seen anything like it and it is both disheartening and discouraging. Maybe that's why I liked Heski's article, though he has some things a bit warped, as well. One of the latest thunderbolts to rock my brain is his description of the various halts and the movements from them. I have never been able to reconcile this business about George Custer leaving Halt 1 (the coffee halt) at 8 a.m. and arriving at the Crow's Nest at 10 a.m. What?, for 3 1/2 miles? What, did he stop at a Starbuck's along the way to get coffee for everyone? Well, between Heski and "erkki," I now have that pretty much under control, but what slays me here is how come no one else has ever put the simple 2's and 2's together to come up with four? I guess maybe this is why my opinions of people like Gray, Liddic, Willert, Stewart, Pennington, and so many others (not Fox, mind you) are changing... and not to the better.
This Godfrey thing is an absolutely perfect example. The simply insertion of a word changes everything, yet there is no attendant explanation or even an attempt to draw conclusions. To me, that smacks of an agenda and the twisting of fact to fit theory. Do we now call Benteen's into question or do we further absolve him because he had no idea-- at the time-- he shouldn't have spent the extra time to water? If he did spend the time-- unknowing of a message yet to come-- maybe that eliminates some time he could have wasted on Reno Hill rather than going to Golden Boy's pre-funeral party.
Very disappointing, to say the least. It's additionally disappointing to me because all this time I have taken various writers at face value, I suddenly discover, they may be close to worthless-- in some cases-- and I should be spending all my time reviewing and reading testimonies and diaries, etc.
Well, I cannot say I haven't been warned. "Darkcloud" and "Harpskiddie" have been ringing that bell for some time now.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by blaque on Nov 26, 2007 13:13:34 GMT -6
The “again” was not put by Godfrey or Stewart, but by Liddic. However, note that he is not directly quoting Stewart (he just bases his statement on Stewart's book) and that he places the "again" just before “stopped”. I mean, Lidic might be meaning that the command stopped again, this time to water the horses. After all, the battalion had made a couple of halts to wait for news of Gibson’s party, besides the halt to split the regiment; and may be Liddic is assuming that Godfrey, like Benteen, did make a short halt in the Lone Tepee –Liddic wrote the “stopped again” sentence just after describing Benteen’s own halt in the Lone Tepee.
I think Liddic deserves the benefit of the doubt, but definitely his use of “again” is a bit misleading. And you're right, Fred, there's nothing like drinking from original sources.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 26, 2007 14:12:11 GMT -6
blaque--
You are probably right. And I generally like Liddic's work; I don't agree with a lot of what he writes, but his book is one of the better ones out there. His work on Reno in the valley and on top of Reno Hill is some of the best I have read, but it is the little stuff like this that is so misleading.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|