|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 27, 2007 7:42:59 GMT -6
And if we see the date of publication, 1926, we note it was the 50th anniversary of the battle.
Lots of people may have been cashing in on the celebration.
The Charlie Reynolds tale should immediately raise red flags.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Nov 27, 2007 8:02:52 GMT -6
crzhrs "...date of publication, 1926, we note it was the 50th anniversary of the battle."
THAT, may be the most significant thing of all. Good point.
M
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 27, 2007 10:50:31 GMT -6
You've gotta love these guys ... their inventiveness knows no bounds. Yes, the Charley Reynolds stuff is the biggest giveaway. And he's slipped up again with his "Major Skulley": as we know, the QM was Nowlan. Furthermore, there's no Skulley (or Scully, or any other spelling of same) at any rank in any of the other outfits involved: www.cbhma.org/Research/participants/1876-campaign.shtmlIt's a good try, though -- definitely one of the more semi-credible efforts. A case of close, but no cigar. Agree re the anniversary. I remember being in Dublin for the 50th anniversary of the Easter Rising, and you couldn't enter a pub without at least 20 elderly gents buttonholing you with tales of their death-defying exploits in the affair -- stripping sleeves and showing scars, etc. It was a standing joke in Dublin at the time that the 1966 "heroes of the Rising" probably outnumbered the entire 1916 population of Ireland ... It was all good harmless fun, and if the odd free drink was cadged in exchange for the odd enjoyable story, everyone was satisfied. The same with LBH, I suspect!
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 27, 2007 11:07:06 GMT -6
It's too bad that such a long time has passed since the fights. With the wealth of information available today, imagine how accurate one could be with his tall tale, simply by inserting himself, or a relative, into the events.
"My name is Thomas Custer Short, and I am the great great grandnephew of Private Nathan Short, who accompanied The Seventh Cavalry to the Little Bighorn, and was the last man to see General Custer alive. This is his story.............................."
Gordie MC missed childhood............................................................
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 27, 2007 11:24:29 GMT -6
gocav-- Nine years old in 1966! My God, you're a pup! Actually, you are my wife's age. Fred, you're from Arkansas? She wouldn't also be your cousin too would she? I couldn't resist! Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 28, 2007 21:18:20 GMT -6
Who says I'm from Arkansas? My God! Living in SW Florida is bad enough!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 29, 2007 0:36:11 GMT -6
Elisabeth, FWIW, Lockwood is discussing Major Skulley as the regiment quartermaster just prior to August 31, 1876. He possibly could have been on staff at FAL or at Leavenworth. Your list of participants is incomplete but it also only includes troops out on the campaign and not of those who were back at FAL, sick, or on special duty. Nowlan was a 1st Lt. and I suspect not the ranking quartermaster for a regiment. That list also includes Boston Custer, Reynolds, the packers, and some scouts as QM which is the same notation given to Nowlan. It may have been their placement or duties on that campaign is why they are listed as QM. I guess someone with access to the full 7th rosters and reports will have to decide this. I have always wanted to invest in the microfilm for the 7th cav. I saw them at the library in Dallas one time but only had a few minutes so I didn't really get to look at them. I could probably get one at a time through interlibrary loan but then I would start with his Kansas activities which is my first research project.
You said the Charlie Reynolds stuff is the dead giveaway, for us neophytes who don't know much about Reynolds, could you please explain please? I don't know what his movements were on June 25, when and where he died, etc. I did read in a Rain-in-the-Face thread that Reynolds was at the 73 expedition.
I know Fred really wants to focus on certain theories of what happened in his chronology threads, however, part and parcel with that is debunking, if you can, the other theories. These threads are probably the best place for that so there can be a full and complete discussion of all the facts and theories for everyone to come to. This message board should be the definitive study of the battle. With 47,000+ posts, I can't for the life of me understand how a new message board could ever duplicate this one but that is another issue. For the Lockwood account, there is a book written, and unless Lockwood's version is somehow debunked, it will always linger in peoples minds and keep them from focusing on the more likely theories, including Fred's, Liddic's, Fox's, Harps', Conz's, Brokensword's, Wild's, and others although some of Lockwood's stuff is not all that inconsistant either. We also need to figure out if he was even there. I'm sure there are payroll and quartermaster records at FAL or the archives that would show if Lockwood and his uncle John Raymond were working as packers, etc. Lockwood told quite a story but I have read accounts of many other frontiersman who have quite a history themselves.
I'm still working on my theory of the battle but I have drawn certain conclusions after reading a lot of posts on this board which has drastically changed my mind about certain things regarding the battle. I will save that for another thread. Perhaps Fred can start a Battle Theory thread at the end so everyone can list their own theory for analysis, coroboration, or rejection by others. That way when someone starts at thread 1, post 1 of the battle chronology, they can then go to the end to few the final theories and then decide for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Nov 29, 2007 0:46:02 GMT -6
Also the book I have says it was published in 1966 and not 1926. He did dictate the manuscript in 1922 but it wasn't published until 1966 by Ryan. He died in 1928.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 29, 2007 1:33:04 GMT -6
bc:
First Lieutenant Henry J. Nowlan was appointed Regimental Quartermaster effective 1 March 1872. He also was assigned as Quartermaster for the Dakota Column commanded by General Terry and was with Terry's headquarters during the fights. There was no Major Skulley with the Seventh Cavalry at any time in 1876, and had there been, it would have been unlikely that a field grade officer would have been assigned as Regimental Quartermaster. Actually, it would have been impossible. No Major would have stood for such an assignment.
Charley Varnum became Quartermaster after the fights, unofficially, and then officially from 1 November 1876. Nowlan probably served while things were being cleaned up and the regiment being re-organized and re-staffed.
There was no Major Skulley with any of the regiments or departmental headquarters in the field in 1876 in Montana. There were no packers named Lockwood or Raymond with the Seventh Cavalry, and there were no soldiers by those names with any of the commands in the field.
Civilian employees, scouts, guides and interpreters and also enlisted Indian scouts were in fact employed by the Quartermaster's department, and paid out of that department's funds, which is where you probably got the QM notation for Charley Reynolds and others. Neither Lockwood nor Raymond appear in the quartermaster department records.
Charley Reynolds accompanied Reno's battalion into the valley and took part in the valley fight. He was killed during the "charge" from the timber to the bluffs. Several witnesses have left accounts of his death. He was buried there. In 1877, Philetus Norris, the first superintendent of Yellowstone Park, and a friend of Reynolds, stopped in the Little Horn valley, and guided by a map drawn for him by Fred Girard, located some of Reynolds' remains, wrapped them up and took them with him, and they were buried with Norris in his family plot when he died.
One of the hallmarks of all survivor stories is that there is always some modicum of accuracy in them, which it is apparently hoped will carry the day for the tale. You could do it yourself, and probably better than Lockwood - make it a newly discovered diary or something.
Gordie MC
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Nov 29, 2007 1:56:22 GMT -6
[Posted while Gordie was posting. Gordie, you've said it all.] I could be wrong about Skulley -- maybe he does exist. He's not on any of the pre-battle rosters as far as I know; somewhere, Billy's posted pre- and post-battle rosters, so if I can find those I'll see if he turns up as someone drafted in from outside. I do have my doubts, though as no-one of that name appears to be listed in Heitman's Register. Nowlan was appointed Regimental Quartermaster in 1872. At what date he actually relinquished the role in order to take over command of Co. I, I'm not sure; formally it's backdated to June 25th 1876, but of course that's only a formality. (For a great account of Nowlan's abilities as RQM, see Roger Darling's Custer's Seventh Cavalry Comes to Dakota. He describes Nowlan as "the hero" of the Dakota transfer.) True that he's only a 1st Lt., but he does seem to have had a natural bent for this admin stuff. His dad was a paymaster in the British army, so perhaps it was in the genes. Re Reynolds: sorry, I suppose I was talking in shorthand. The thing about Reynolds is that all other accounts have him firmly with Reno's battalion, and killed in the valley fight. If you really are a neophyte (you don't sound like one -- far too knowledgeable for that!) you might be glad to have this excellent link: digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?id=History.RenoIt's the full transcript of the Reno Court of Inquiry. Girard's evidence (he's the second witness up, if I remember correctly) goes into plenty of detail about Reynolds' whereabouts and actions in the fight, plus there are other mentions throughout -- if you use the search facility on the opening page, it's a short-cut to those. But essentially, unless all those present are suffering some mass delusion, there's no way Reynolds could have been with Custer. He was definitely with Reno. The Battle Theory thread is a great idea. Could be a very useful way to distill what otherwise gets scattered across dozens of other threads ...
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 29, 2007 5:53:25 GMT -6
I know Fred really wants to focus on certain theories of what happened in his chronology threads, however, part and parcel with that is debunking, if you can, the other theories. These threads are probably the best place for that so there can be a full and complete discussion of all the facts and theories for everyone to come to. This message board should be the definitive study of the battle. ... We also need to figure out if he was even there.... ... Perhaps Fred can start a Battle Theory thread at the end so everyone can list their own theory for analysis, coroboration, or rejection by others. That way when someone starts at thread 1, post 1 of the battle chronology, they can then go to the end to view the final theories and then decide for themselves. bc-- You needn't worry about muddying up this particular group of threads. My only objection will be the posts "taking people to task" or "mocking" someone's ideas. As long as those rules are adhered to, it's fair game. To me-- and to Diane-- this should be as much a learning tool as a discussion. We don't learn if we are afraid to ask or postulate for fear some idiot will make us look foolish. Only one idiot tried and he was summarily wiped clean. The difference between the two "Fred moderated" sections is the first should be for more supportable, verified or definitive events, then this section for anyone's discussion. I would also like the threads to be copied so there is some correlation. As to your second idea of a separate section for "Battle Theory," if you clear it with Diane and she likes the idea, setting it up for me, I would be delighted to do it. I think it is a very good idea and it would consolidate theories that are all over these boards but virtually inaccessible because of all the diversions and digressions. ( Maybe some of us could renew some older friendships that way, as well.) As for your Lockwood, et al, here is the generally accepted group that was-- may have been-- there. The RCOI testimony is very interesting and while others claim many more civilian packers were there, those who were, don't: Civilian Packers (6): (Ken Hammer claims as many as 12 at the battle itself. This makes sense, giving 1 packer to each company. Most other accounts claim only 6, naming just 4 for certain: *. Packer Frett, at the RCOI, said there were only 5 or 6. Churchill said 6 or 7. LT Mathey said 4 or 5. I use 6 in my strength totals [as of 25August 2007], but I couldn't give you a definitive 6th name.) Alexander, William—b. England, 1838; d. Washington, DC, 6Feb1922. Resided in the Soldier’s Home in Washington DC. Presence at the battle mentioned by Raymond C. Hillyer, in an article he wrote: “Which They Had Captured All,” Research Review, Winter, 2007, Vol. 21, No. 1. * Churchill, Benjamin Franklin Edwards, George—Not listed in Camp. Flint, Moses E. * Frett, John—Had a serious argument with Reno on the hilltop; claimed Reno had been drinking. Lainplough, John Lawless, William Loeser, Chris—Died some time after 1911. * Mann, Frank C. – Killed on Reno Hill in Company A’s sector, 26Jun76. Shot between the eyes or in temple. McBratney, Harry Moore, Edward L. * Wagoner, John C. (also spelled Wagner [ thank you very much!]) – b. NY, 1836; d. St. Paul, MN, 5May99. Chief packer. WIA in head. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Nov 29, 2007 11:14:58 GMT -6
bc:
Since Fred was good enough to list the names, here are a few other details from the QM records.
FLINT [FLINK], Moses E.: Enlisted as civilian packer by 7th Cavalry QM [transferred from St.Paul to FAL 17 April 1876]. Paid from 18 April. Discharged 23 September 1876.
ALEXANDER, William: Employed as civilian packer by 7th Cavalry QM [transferred from St. Paul to FAL 17 April]. Discharged 23 September 1876.
CHURCHILL, B.F.[C]: originally hired as a teamster, he was assigned as a packer 22 June and was discharged 23 September. He testified at the RCOI.
FRETT [FRETTS, FRITZ], John: hired in St. Paul and transferred to FAL 17 April 1876 [along with a bunch of others. Discharged on 8 July. He also testified at the RCOI.
LAMPLOUGH [LAINPLOUGH], John: Employed as a civilian packer 2 May 1876 and discharged 23 September.
LAWLESS, William: Hired as a civilian packer 1 April 1876 in St. Paul and transferred to FAL 17 April. Paid from 18 April and discharged on 24 July.
LOESER, Charles [Chris]: Employed as civilian packer 26 March 1876 and discharged 24 July.
MANN, Frank C. [G.]: Hired in St. Paul and transferred to FAL 17 April. He was killed on 26 June on the hilltop [next to William Nugent of A Company].
MCBRATNEY, Henry [Harry]:Employed as a civilian packer and transferred to FAL 17 April, with pay to commence 18 April. He was discharged 23 September.
MOORE, E.L.: Employed as civilian packer 13 May 1876 and either quit or was discharged 30 June, to which time he was duly paid.
WAGONER [WAGNER], John C.: He was employed as Chief Packer 1 March 1876, at a monthly pay rate of $100 [packers were paid $50 monthly, teamsters $30]. He was wounded on 25 June on the hilltop. Discharged 23 September.
It is also possible that a man hired as a teamster, George EDWARDS, did double duty as a packer after the wagons were left behind. There is a double payment for him in the QM records, but I cannot find anything that puts him at LBH, so I have not included him in my rosters. He was hired 1 April and discharged 24 July.
Those who completed the campaign were shown as discharged on 23 September 1876. If they were discharged earlier, it would indicate that they opted out, or perhaps were found wanting in some regard. It was usually a part of employment conditions that, in addition to pay and rations [1 ration per day], transportation back to the starting point would be included if the employee served honorably throughout. What these standards were is anybody's guess.
All of these men were employed as Quartermaster department employees, although I got tired of typing it in for everyone. I also did not put in the actuial amounts of pay they received, which is part of the record [and one of the ways I determined who was a packer], since it is only interesting as a matter of trivia, and if you're THAT interested, you can always Casey Stengel.
Good luck in your researches and theorizing. Take frequent naps, it can be a daunting task, even if you don't go to original sources [which is always best]. Speaking of naps.......... Gordie MC
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 29, 2007 11:42:49 GMT -6
Nice job, Harps.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Nov 30, 2007 9:30:07 GMT -6
Elisabeth, his name is SKULLY, not Skulley, which is why you didn't find him in Heitman (something I have gotten used to on the project from Hell is variant spellings.) Here is is his data:
Scully, James Wall. Ireland. Tenn. Pvt corpl and sergt K 1 art 20 Sept 1856 to 20 Sept 1861;. 1 lt r q m 10 Tenn inf 14 July 1862; lt col 21 Aug 1863; co1 6 June 1864; hon must out 25 May 1865; capt a q m vols 25 Sept 1865 to 2 Oct 1865; capt a q m U S A 27 Sept 1865; maj q m 25 Jan 1883; lt co1 d q m g 12 Sept 1894; col a q m g 4 Feb 1898; bvt maj 27 Sept 1865 for gal and mer ser in the battle of Mill Spring Ky; lt col 27 Sept 1865 for gal and mer ser in the battle of Shiloh Tenn and col 27 Sept 1865 for gal and mer ser in the battle of Nashville Term; retd 1 Nov 1900.
At the time of LBH, he was still a captain in the Quartermasters Dept. I am guessing but imagine that the rank of Major refers to his brevet rank although why he wasn't called Colonel is beyond me...must be an Army thing. D Q M G is deputy quartermaster general and A Q M G is assistant QM general.
I suspect that he was QM Gen. for the Department of the Dakotas. The next time I am at Leavenworth I will look at the Ft. Lincoln microfilm to see if he is present during that period. His name is familiar so maybe I spotted it some time ago when looking through the Bismarck Depot records at the National Archives.
BC, if you are in the KC area, give me a yell as I have the first two reels of the 7th Cavalry's muster rolls.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 30, 2007 10:13:37 GMT -6
BC, if you are in the KC area, give me a yell... BC is much too smart to live in the KC area. And where's the stuff you promised me? Traitor!!Best wishes, Fred.
|
|