|
Post by fred on Oct 31, 2007 7:31:47 GMT -6
Actually, Varnum did state that Custer viewed the valley from the divide. C.A. Varnum to Albert W. Johnson, January 9, 1933: “When partly down I met Custer and Tom and Jim Calhoun. He sent Tom and Calhoun back, and went with me TO THE CREST OF THE DIVIDE”. From "Letters!", compilation of LBH letters edited and printed by John M. Carroll on 1978, p. 26-27. In his Reminiscences, Varnum referred to that lookout in the crest of the divide as “the Crow Nest”. Thus, either Varnum had a faulty recollection in 1933 (not improbable), or Vern’s hypothesis about Varnum’s lookout being somewhere on the Divide is absolutely right. blaque-- That's a great post and it either slipped my mind or I simply didn't know it. There appears to be, however, ample evidence of trips to both places, so your musing about Varnum's memory over some 50+ years is probably correct. Smalley's theory carries a lot of weight with me-- and at the risk of incorporating fantasy amongst fact-- there is ample evidence to support a theory of a "one, then the other," sequence. I will start a new thread for the discussion of this gem on the other topic boards. Best wishes, Fred. blaque-- If you want, we can get into a discussion-- pro and con-- about the Crow's Nest versus Smalley's "Varnum's Lookout." Quite frankly, I believe Vern Smalley has come up with an extremely valid theory, though I would modify it somewhat. I do not believe Vern is correct in his "genesis," though it is clear-- to me, at least-- that he is correct by saying Custer looked over the LBH valley from "Varnum's Lookout." Vern expands his theory, and I am not a big proponent of that expansion, but he is due all the credit in the world for his emphasis on Varnum's Lookout, per se. This entire time-frame-- from the first halt to the actual move across the divide is all screwed up in everything I've read (which, admittedly, is a heck of a lot less than what you or fellows like "Hunk" and "harps"-- and we mustn't forget Elisabeth-- have ingested). It is my opinion that much of it falls into the lap of the "Local Time versus St. Paul Time" problem. If you add to that the perceived psychological mind-set of the people involved, then the entire period we know as "2 a.m. to 12:15 p.m." on the 25th and as recorded by people like Gray, Stewart, Willert, Liddich, et al, becomes problematic. Without getting into an entire dissertation of reasoning, it is my opinion that George Custer viewed the valley of the LBH from atop the Crow's Nest and came away unconvinced that was anything in the valley (at least anything that his scouts had pointed to). I believe this upset Varnum because he felt the scouts were correct and had been correct all along. As the command made its way to Halt Two and Custer rejoined it, Varnum came down from the Crow's nest as well, but was so intent upon making sure Custer understood what was confronting him, that he implored the general to take another look as the column approached the divide. Custer acquiesced and that was when he took DeRudio's field glasses, that was where and when "Varnum's Lookout" comes into play, that was when the column halted just before the divide and Custer mounted those "bluffs" to view the valley again. He did not make a second trip to the "Crow's Nest hill" as we know it to be called, but he did view the LBH valley a second time. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 31, 2007 10:37:49 GMT -6
Varnum does not mention that this is the SECOND trip to anywhere, nor does he mention ANY second trip in any of his writings that I have ever seen... . Gordie-- I am aware of this. I also do not remember claiming Varnum said anything of the sort... but, others did. If I am not mistaken, Varnum actually did say Custer never made a second trip to the place where he first looked over the LBH valley, be that wherever. But again, there was the business about DeRudio's glasses... so when did that transpire? Also, Custer took only a few Rees and Fred Gerard with him when he went to the Crow's Nest hill, so anyone who was not there could not say for certainty where Custer went on this first trip. I believe it was Gray who claimed Custer took his brother, Tom, and Calhoun with him, yet it was Tom who Custer seemed piqued at when he saw the regiment moving. Therefore, Tom couldn't have been along for the first trip. If Tom was correctly reported to have been with George when the latter looked out into the LBH valley, then there had to have been a second trip to... somewhere. As for the "times," I generally agree with you about specific relevancy. Whether they crossed the divide at 0800, 1000, or 1215, only bears import when one looks at what time the battle began. What happened in the interim? How long did it take to go from Point A to Point B to Point C? What were they doing during that period? The distance? All of that can give us some sort of insight into their feelings of immediacy or lack thereof. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Oct 31, 2007 11:11:24 GMT -6
The times towards the end of the day can have significance as some events were correlated by the witnesses to hours before sunset or dark. We can get some sort of relative view of the gap between events from that.
With respect to Vern, he did come on here and debate his theory of the alternate Crows Nest at some length mainly with Blaque and me. I was largely arguing against him and I have to say he did not convince me about Varnum's initial location. The critical evidence for me was the movement of the Sioux party which I think would have gone right over his alternate site. However, I was prepared to accept that Custer might have gone to look into the valley a second time and not been far from Vern's location then.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 31, 2007 14:59:39 GMT -6
Mike--
I think that is the weak point in Vern's argument. I believe he has the Sioux party on what he calls "Elephant Hill." Vern and I walked up there in June. If you stand on the divide, looking into the Reno Creek valley, this Elephant Hill is to your right and rear and is higher than the divide. "Varnum's Lookout" is barely 200 yards from the divide crossing (to its right, again, as one looks into the western valleys). A party sitting atop the divide would be too close to Elephant Hill and while those Sioux would, in fact, be silhouetted against the sky, I think their proximity would have been too alarming and I don't think they could have-- or would have-- gotten that close.
The other problem I had with Vern's theory-- and again, I only have a problem with it when it is in lieu of the Crow's Nest hill-- is that the place he has Varnum and some others parking themselves, is too wet, too often, and not large enough for the number of horses they had with them. The whole thing-- that little pocket, Elephant's Hill, Varnum's Lookout-- is more a microcosm of the real thing, than the real thing itself.
Now-- having just smacked a friend's theory in the face-- I do believe Vern has pointed out an important element in this whole "viewing the valley" business and I think his theory answers the question about that so-called second trip to the "Crow's Nest."
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Nov 1, 2007 1:08:16 GMT -6
Hi Fred
You and I are in accord on this.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 1, 2007 14:53:39 GMT -6
Mike-- Just to illustrate the point, here are three views of Reno Creek valley and the LBH, way beyond. This is taken from the Crow's Nest hilltop. It is Reno Creek with the LBH off in the distance. You could actually see a sliver of the river from this spot though it is far from clear in the small picture. Reno Creek from Vern Smalley's Varnum's Lookout. Notice the different angle because of the lower position on the divide. The divide crossing point would be to the picture's left, probably less than 200 yards, and, I believe, just to the left of that treeline on the left. Another view of Reno Creek taken from a different spot on Crow's Nest hill. The divide is that treeline on the crest of the left-right ridge. They crossed it out of sight to the right. Notice in the middle picture, the one taken from "Varnum's Lookout": look at the line of bluffs on the right. See how they intrude into the picture? The Indian village would have been over and beyond those bluffs making any sighting highly problematic. Now compare that area with the views from the two Crow's Nest hill pictures. You see those same bluffs, but you can also see over them, making any sighting beyond them just a little easier. Any smoke that could possibly have been seen could certainly have been seen more easily from the higher elevations. I think-- and AZ Ranger has given us some good information on this-- smoke would have more easily dissipated into the early morning haze if you were watching from the lower elevation (because of the difficulty of the angle, not the timing). That lower elevation would mean the smoke would have to have risen higher in order for you to have seen it from the divide. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Nov 1, 2007 18:37:45 GMT -6
Fred,
So much enjoying these threads, especially this one! But I would swear that the first and third pictures that you've shown here are identical!
Bab
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 1, 2007 20:12:50 GMT -6
Montana--
Oo-o-o-ps! You are correct, my dear. Let me see if I can fix that.
Thanks.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 1, 2007 20:16:30 GMT -6
Montana--
How's that?!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Nov 2, 2007 9:23:51 GMT -6
Very interesting discussion and examination of the minutiae of the campaign and their possible influence on the battle.My own opinion is that the slowest mule in the pack train had far greater influence on the outcome than any other factor.This mule ment Custer made contact with the Indians a day later than was possible thus allowing Terry time to rescue Reno and the remnants of the 7th. Ironic is it not that having been led to the slaughter by a donkey the 7th is saved by the offspring of a donkey
|
|
|
Post by conz on Nov 2, 2007 10:52:02 GMT -6
Wild,
What is it that you have against military officers? Is it something personal?
There are plenty of good reasons why the Army mascot is the mule, and not the horse. <g>
Clair
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 2, 2007 11:24:00 GMT -6
Fred, those photos are fabulous -- the clearest illustrations I've seen. Thanks for these, and for all the others you've added to the chronology thread. They really do take things from the realm of academic discussion into reality.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 2, 2007 11:41:04 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
Thank you. I'm hoping to get even better ones next year when darkcloud and I meet out there for a couple of cold ones.
I have a better camera now, too.
I do agree, however. Pictures help a lot, especially when they are in color. I use only a small, 12" Mac G4 PowerBook, so I cannot get the full effect, but I might think with a larger screen they would be pretty good. More important, pretty helpful.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Nov 2, 2007 15:19:58 GMT -6
Elisabeth-- I do agree, however. Pictures help a lot, especially when they are in color. I use only a small, 12" Mac G4 PowerBook, so I cannot get the full effect, but I might think with a larger screen they would be pretty good. More important, pretty helpful. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, Elisabeth is so right! The photos are so helpful, especially that last photo! I can only speak for myself, but I also appreciate all the work you've done on these threads (and the others also). I especially like the fact that the information comes from all sources available which has helped me get a more rounded view. The 'tid-bits' that pop up have also helped me. For instance, the information that Gordie gave about CGSC on another thread. That was a source that I found myself relying on somewhat( mainly because of the maps), but now I know I have to read it all with a 'jaundiced eye'. I guess that goes for all the sources available. Shucks! Bab
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 2, 2007 16:13:27 GMT -6
Montana--
I do not know much about how C&GS puts their stuff together, but I would think they use it more as a teaching tool for military learning than anything else. That doesn't mean they take license with accuracy, but I think their approach may be different than what others take, so their scholarship may be outside the generally accepted lines. I don't know; I'm guessing.
One of the things I have learned about this whole, now-two-year exercise of posting on these threads, is that the most important object is to find and read the primary sources. And what is really strange-- at least to me-- is that quotes, even in context, often lose their impact or give a different feeling than what you get when you read that same quote within the shape of its original form. Obtuse?
What I am trying to do is to gather as much original information as I can and put it in the context of the topography of the terrain, the training of the individuals, the tenor of the times, and the psychology of military operations. In other words, apply common sense and not listen to others' opinions... too much. There is an element of manners that enters the equation, but the opinions, when formed, are and will be my own. Too many of us try to make this thing way too complicated; it wasn't. Too many weird routes, too many deviations, too much switching of forces, unclear and even dumb objectives, impossible maneuvers, back and forth, hither and yon... nonsense. The whole thing encompassed an action over a distance of less than 10 miles (that's a long distance), in under 6 hours (maybe under 5, and that's not a lot of time), involving forces committed piecemeal-- on both sides-- one side of which was confronted by odds of 10- to 15-1. There's no astro-physics involved here.
So, you gather as much accurate information as you can, apply that old common sense yardstick, and go from there. Yep... the pictures help.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|