|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 22, 2007 12:06:30 GMT -6
Two things it might be useful to establish about Reno's scout.
(1) Did Custer turn it down? Or did he only decide it was pointless after Reno was chosen to lead it in his place?
The original plan was for the whole regiment to conduct a scout. Once Terry concluded that six companies would do, it should (theoretically) not have been a point of pride with Custer to lead this downgraded mission. Surely he would be far more useful in camp, overseeing the outfitting and training of the rest of the regiment for whatever lay ahead. (Not that he did, much; he seems to have sulked in his tent, writing.)
Conz, as a military man, said that Terry would have no authority to select Reno over Custer. To this civilian's eyes, he's in command of the whole campaign, and can do what he likes ... but I realise that's probably a simple-minded view. Is that correct? It would be good if we could assemble evidence for the true picture of this. Reno chosen by Terry (as per Darling)? Or Custer pouring scorn on the enterprise and refusing to go?
(2) Custer's criticisms -- "mistake of his life", etc. OK, that's jumping ahead in the chronology, but we can be undisciplined here! (I hope.)
Thinking of what we know of attacks on Plains villages up to that time -- largely, I suppose, Washita, and the Reynolds affair on March 17th -- could Reno have attacked and WON?
* He'd have had the benefit of surprise. * He had six companies against 400 lodges -- far better odds than Custer's twelve against (conservatively) 1,500. * He "had the morale on them": they hadn't yet got the Crook victory under their belts. * This village was the "hostiles" alone: more warriors per lodge, probably -- but maybe fewer women and children along than once the summer trippers had joined. More firepower. But less reason to go for a last-ditch defense of their hearths and homes, perhaps? * He had a Gatling. Not as good as a howitzer for spreading terror, true; but for riddling a village, or destroying a pony herd once captured, pretty formidable.
From what Peter Thompson says, it was pretty hard to persuade Reno to turn back. If he had gone on ... would the outcome of that whole summer have been very different?
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 22, 2007 14:26:41 GMT -6
Elisabeth, another successful attack on an Indian village was September 3rd 1855, by Col. William S. Harney against the Brule village of Little Thunder camped on the Blue River, just north of the North Platte. This was in retaliation for the Grattan killings. I have posted some views on the Terry/Reno/Custer matter on the Battle Chronology board on June 10th, that you may find relevant. I am not sure at what point the Gatling gun carriage had its tongue broken but I'll check and get back on this.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by markland on Oct 22, 2007 14:44:07 GMT -6
Gordie, your new, improved source jives with a newspaper report published in the Lawrence, KS Republican Journal on June 6, 1876.
Dateline Yankton, Black Hills June 5, 1876.
"A dispatch received at the military headquarters to-day, dated the 4th, states that a courier arrived from Red Cloud [the chief or the agency?] this morning who says that Yellow Robe arrived at the agency six days ago from a hostile camp of 1,806 lodges on the Rosebud who were about to leave for the Powder river below the point of the Crazy Horse fight [Reynold's battle?]. The Indians say they will fight and have 3,000 warriors."
Same paper, June 9, 1876. This almost seems like a revision of the above. Or it could be another village.
"Omaha, June 8.-A dispatch received at the Department headquarters this morning, dated at Ft. Laramie, 7th inst., says an Indian Courier from Red Cloud brings a report that just before he left, an Indian arrived from the mouth of Tongue river, who found there 1,273 lodges under Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and others on their way to Powder river to fight Crook. On his return he met the same band that Egan saw on May 17th. They tell him they met Custar's [sic] troops and fought them all day-many killed on both sides. No result reported. This occurred about eight days ago."
I think someone got some garbled info on the fight mentioned above. I can not find any fights beyond the Reynold's fight on March 17 and a fight in Nebraska involving nine soldiers, some civilians and a "small party of Lakotas" which occurred on April 28 at Gracie Creek, Nebraska. This could be the one mentioned but that is just a guess. Maybe next week I can get over to Topeka and get some more newspaper articles.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 22, 2007 15:06:59 GMT -6
I love the precise count. Not about 1800, but 1806. I'd be sure interested in seeing the Sioux word for 1806 in the year 1876, given their need for high numbers like that in daily life, and any scout that couldn't give a precise count of a buffalo herd was worthless. Also: the Cheyenne's value for Pi, which would be equally plausible.
There was a time in Kansas when Custer was duly reported dead in the 1860's, I recall, by equally well informed journalists which was yet another compelling reason for Sherman to wish for the Vengeance Upon The Fourth Estate he daily hoped for.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 22, 2007 15:24:49 GMT -6
Elisabeth, apparently the most detailed source for the reno scout is Hardorff's article "The Reno Scout:Itinerary of Sergeant James Hill, An Official Record of the Reno Scout" in the RR Vol.11, Dec 1977, but I do not have a copy. It is however referred to in James Willert's article "Another Look at the Reno Scout" in the RR Vol.14, No.2, Summer 2000, which notes that on June 15th "During the march down the Tongue tributary, the tongue of the Gatling gun carriage broke, and the vehicle overturned..". I do not know if they had the means to repair it, or it remained serviceable, but it was taken with them because they did not return via the Tongue. On June 19th Willert states that as Reno led his column along the south side of the Yellowstone he found himself in very bad terrain "so severe that at one place the Gatling gun had to be lowered down a cliffside by ropes." As the Montana Column and Dakota Column each started with two Gatlings and Custer was only offered the three that ended up with Terry, it seems that the one Reno returned may well have been out of commission. That would have put a different complexion on continuing after the Indians if his firepower was thus diminished.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Oct 22, 2007 17:38:04 GMT -6
Conz, as a military man, said that Terry would have no authority to select Reno over Custer. To this civilian's eyes, he's in command of the whole campaign, and can do what he likes ... but I realise that's probably a simple-minded view. Is that correct? Elisabeth, Conz is correct but there are ways to get around it. Terry would have followed the chain-of-command and passed the mission through Custer but he could have done it in such as to influence the outcome. For example, Terry could have stated “I want you (Custer) to send out a patrol of x amount of men….and I recommend that you assign your most senior officer to lead the patrol.” Just a possibility but I would be shocked if Terry didn’t follow established military protocol when he ordered the patrol. George
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 23, 2007 1:43:32 GMT -6
Curious, that second newspaper report, Billy. It doesn't even seem to mesh with even the most minor encounters either Crook or Gibbon had. It does indicate that the Indians knew Custer was in the field, I suppose ... Maybe the Indians were simply smart enough to use the propaganda machine to spread alarm and despondency. Sowing confusion among the enemy always helps ...
Hunk, thanks for those sources. All I have in any detail, apart from Gray, is Willert's To the Edge of Darkness, and that too says nothing about any repairs. But as the gun continued to trundle along with no further drama beyond the lowering-by-ropes episode, presumably they must have been able to patch it up successfully. If Reno had managed to destroy a gun as well as wearing out stock, one would think it would have been mentioned in either Custer's or Terry's denunciations.
Has anyone got Conquest of the Missouri? I'm wondering if the fourth gun might have been retained as armament for the Far West.
George, good thought re protocol. You're right, a tactful man like Terry could no doubt have got round it that way, or with something like "Custer, I need you on hand to supervise [whatever], therefore I suggest ...", or similar.
Interestingly, Godfrey's diary for the 9th talks about preparations for a scout, "but we don't know how many Cos or what ones go out" -- implying that even on the 9th there was an expectation that it would be only part of the regiment that would go.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Oct 23, 2007 3:30:58 GMT -6
Elisabeth, in 'Conquest of the Missouri' page 259, it says "He [Custer] was urged to take the three Gatling guns under Lieutenant Low, which, though already across the river....". There is mo mention of the fourth Gatling being kept for the boat's protection. As the gun that went with Reno only had the tongue on its carriage broken, it would seem that the wheels were still intact so that it could still be pulled along. Not being in any way an armaments expert I do not know whether a broken carriage would prevent the gun itself being deployed to fire.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 23, 2007 3:49:28 GMT -6
Thanks. I'd had some vague memory of the Far West being armed to the teeth at some point, but maybe that was on the return journey.
Bradandlaurie's our Gatling expert, so maybe he could confirm whether the broken tongue would have any effect. (Wish we knew how/if they repaired it. They had blacksmiths along in each company, but presumably nothing they could use. There'd be enlisted men with carpentry skills; maybe they'd have been able to splint it together with horseshoe nails? Or even simply lash splints to it with rope. Or cut a new one from green wood. They clearly did something to get the thing moving again.) To this non-expert, it seems unlikely they'd have continued to drag it around if it was completely useless; more sensible to cache it, or even send the team back to base camp with an escort, rather than going to all that trouble. But we'll see what the experts say.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 23, 2007 7:40:41 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
By tradition and protocol, Terry "should" not bypass Custer and order a specific officer or sub-element to do something. It would be unusual, and offensive.
But George is right that the commander can do just about anything, if he wants to stir up a hornet's nest amongst his subordinates. Sometimes a higher commander will be very adamant about how he wants something just so, with the specific officer to do it. Technically, the order still goes "through" the intermediate commander (ala Custer here), but it is really demanded and he has no choice in the matter. But again, this would be the exception, rather than the rule, but still plenty of examples of it in military history.
What is odd, and points to this exception being made here, is that the order specifies Reno right from Terry's headquarters...it is not written to Custer, per se, or re-written by Custer's regimental headquarters, as would be proforma.
Now this could be because only Terry's headquarters really had the easy ability to make out detailed written orders in the field, or that because he and Custer were right there together he went ahead and made it out directly to Reno. But it definitely violates protocol, and that leaves open the distinct possibility, at least, that Terry did indeed go over Custer's head and objections and make out an order directly for Reno from Terry, with Custer having no say in the matter.
But I think this unlikely...I don't see Terry as wanting to piss off Custer that much, just as they were getting close to the Natives. Does anyone else see the relationship between Terry and Custer differently?
Was Terry acting the martinet and trying to deliberately embarrass and put Custer in his place at this point in the campaign?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 23, 2007 7:44:47 GMT -6
Thanks. I'd had some vague memory of the Far West being armed to the teeth at some point, but maybe that was on the return journey. Bradandlaurie's our Gatling expert, so maybe he could confirm whether the broken tongue would have any effect. (Wish we knew how/if they repaired it. They had blacksmiths along in each company, but presumably nothing they could use. There'd be enlisted men with carpentry skills; maybe they'd have been able to splint it together with horseshoe nails? Or even simply lash splints to it with rope. Or cut a new one from green wood. They clearly did something to get the thing moving again.) To this non-expert, it seems unlikely they'd have continued to drag it around if it was completely useless; more sensible to cache it, or even send the team back to base camp with an escort, rather than going to all that trouble. But we'll see what the experts say. The Gatling was rigged just like most field pieces of that day. So if the tongue was broken, it is very unlikely that it could be "jury-rigged" for field use, but it may have been patched up well enough to use on the boat. A lot depends upon the nature of the break, though. Clair
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Oct 23, 2007 8:32:41 GMT -6
Conz,
I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that the written order from Terry named Reno as commander of patrol. I'm surprised Terry would handle it that way. It would be interesting to know the specifics involved.
George
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 23, 2007 8:44:25 GMT -6
Conz, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that the written order from Terry named Reno as commander of patrol. I'm surprised Terry would handle it that way. It would be interesting to know the specifics involved. George Yeah...looks awfully fishy...here's the order as Fred produced it: Now I don't have it in context with the rest of the order...I'll have to go look that up to see if there are any clues there. But it is odd that an order by the Department Commander would mention a 2IC of a regiment specifically, even to detailing the companies to be used (it says "right wing," and I think they knew which lettered companies they meant). The detail here is like a regimental order, so I suspect that Custer actually wrote this order with Terry, and had Terry publish it since he had a full staff, and Custer didn't. My opinion, right now, is that this is actually Custer's paragraph in the order, put under his commander's penmanship for convenience. Even if Terry wanted to specify Reno to be in command, and the general size of his patrol, he wouldn't go to as much detail as this if it wasn't Custer's decision-making here. Clair
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Oct 23, 2007 8:52:09 GMT -6
Clair, that is a most interesting point. It would be nice to see the previous ten Field Orders, to see if he'd done anything like this before. But on the face of it, this does seem to support Roger Darling's contention in A Sad and Terrible Blunder that it was a deliberate snub to Custer.
He spells out (a) the trouble Terry's had with Custer in the past (as chronicled in his own Custer's Seventh Cavalry Comes to Dakota), and (b) the occasions on which Custer's annoyed him by being insubordinate, cheeky, frivolous, or just plain silly on the march from FAL up to this point. He's not just guessing at Terry's reactions to the latter, but uses his letters and diaries to show his mounting exasperation. Darling's reading of it is that Terry decided Custer needed a short sharp shock to bring him into line, and that this was it. From what you say, it looks as if he could be right.
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Oct 23, 2007 13:28:05 GMT -6
Conz, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that the written order from Terry named Reno as commander of patrol. I'm surprised Terry would handle it that way. It would be interesting to know the specifics involved. George I think it looks like Terry did have a reason to order it this way....in a June 12th dispatch to his St. paul HQ he wrote (extract here)... "Reno with six companies of the 7th cavalry is now well up the river ......[here is outlined where he is going]..... I intend then, if nothing new is developed, to send Custer with nine companies of his regiment upon the Tongue and thence accross and down the Rosebud, while the rest of the 7th will join Gibbon, who will move up the Rosebud."* In other words Custer was to take the larger part of the 7th out up the Rosebud if Reno didn't find anything, thus--the bigger mission. This makes sense for commanders to do it this way. However....Reno 'exercising initiative' went further west and found the Indian trail making Custer's part of the operation superfluous...you can imagine what GAC would have thought of that! * Grey, 'Centennial Campaign' 1988, pg.86
|
|