|
Post by Melani on May 1, 2010 12:32:36 GMT -6
In Washita, Jerome Greene says, "Godfrey had reported the existence downstream of a great number of lodges, and increasingly cognizant of something wrong at Black Kettle's camp, hundreds of Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa warriors gradually began ascending the heights bordering the north side of the Washita, cautiously approaching to discover what was happening. Custer's women prisoners confirmed that other wintering camps lay less than four miles down stream, and the colonel quickly realized that, despite his troops success in seizing the Cheyenne camp, his position was by no means secure. As the afternoon wore on, he anxiously watched through an eyeglass the mounting numbers of armed, war-bonneted figures perched on ponies atop the hills bordering on the valley floor in several directions, believing that an attack was all but inevitable." (p. 123)..."the warriors from the lower camps glowered intently from the hills surrounding the north side of the valley. Some challenged the soldiers to come get their overcoats, then began a series of mounted feints on the soldiers' line..." (p. 124-125) He says that Custer sent Benteen, Myers and Weir alternately to drive them off, and that the warriors finally fell back. Custer also sent Myers to look for Elliot, but Myers didn't find him. ..."Custer also feared that if he remained at the Washita camp overnight, the warriors would discover and attack the advancing wagons and their eighty-man escort." (p.125) ..."By late in the day, the extrication of Custer's command from what appeared to be a steadily worsening threat from the Indians of the downriver camps now became paramount...with guidons flying and skirmishers leading the way, the regiment crossed to the north side of the Washita and started downstream toward the other villages." (p. 127) The Indians made a few feints, but were repulsed. "Finally, believing that the soldiers were about to assault their camps in the same manner as they had Black Kettle's,...most of the Indians on the hills dispersed down the valley to their homes." (p.127-128) "...under cover of darkness...Custer pulled his skirmishers and quickly took the back trail, leading his command past the battlefield and northwestwardly up the Washita in a forced march to reach the wagon train." (p.128)
No attack, only the threat. If Custer hadn't retreated when he did, we might be talking about Custer's Last Stand on the Washita.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 1, 2010 12:42:08 GMT -6
Benteen, we can all always learn something. I've changed my opinions many times as I have learned more about this battle. Not being much of a tactician, I was merely wondering about Benteen coming in from the west. I keep trying to find some pretty good reason for sending him off to the south--so far, all I can come up with is recognizance and to prevent possible escape. I think Benteen was bent out of shape because he felt he was purposely being kept out of the battle, and that upon receiving the order "Be quick," along with Martini's happy assurance that Custer was kicking their behinds, he thought something like, "Well, okay, but I have to water my horses first, and everyone is tired, so I guess we'll be as quick as we can!" He is reported to have said something like, "How can I be quick AND bring the packs?" It wasn't until he came up on Reno's predicament that he realized something had gone wrong.
I'm still not sure if Reno and Benteen actually knew more about Custer's "plans" than they later said. Was Custer in the habit of going over everything with his officers, or was it just, "Follow me, boys, let's go get 'em!"?
|
|
|
Post by Gen. Kuster on May 1, 2010 12:52:44 GMT -6
I like to use the quote option above the message that I am referring to (if I am replying, otherwise, I just post in quick reply like I am doing right now).
Using the quote option, you can cut and paste portions of what you are replying to so you can get at the meat.
After selecting Quote, you shoud see a new dialog box open with brackets at both the beginning and the end of the message in the message area. You will cut and paste these brackets as you wish in order to select and respond to a particular portion of the main message that you are replying to.
I cut away unnecessary stuff and then I "frame" each part of the main message that I want to respond to. In order to frame the specific portion that you want to reply to, you must cut and paste the "standard" beggining bracket at the front and "standard" ending bracket at the end of the particular portion of the message that you are replying to. Then leave a few spaces and start your reply. Repeat this process as often as necessary.
Experiment with cutting and pasting these brackets by seeing how the final mesage appears. You cal always modify the final message or delete it altogether.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 1, 2010 20:41:27 GMT -6
Gen K thanks for taking the time to help me out.Guess its pretty obvious that Im not a computer literate guy.(matter of fact I was lost after they did away with rotary phone) I will get my wife to help me with this cut and paste thing and practice till I get it right.Thanks again for taking the time to help,shows your an officer and a gentleman.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 1, 2010 21:53:08 GMT -6
Melani and DC Would Custer lie? Yes. I believe Custer would do just about anything to further his career and heep glory on himself. I call your attention to his book My Life On The Plains which Benteen refereed to as My Lie On The Plains,and also articles printed in a prominent newspaper written by an unknown reporter praising the bold ,brave exploits of Gen G A Custer.It was commonly thought that this unknown reporter was Custer himself.However the statement by Custer that I refereed to didn't come from a news article, it came from the official Washita after action report. After action reports are a major tool that the Army uses to decide how to adapt and adjust their tactics and strategies by studying the enemy response to them. They are taken very,very seriously almost sacred by the Army. Could you exaggerate enemy casualties in this report? Yes of course you could,in some cases it is impossible to know accurately enemy losses. But tell a bold faced lie? state that you were attacked on all sides when you weren't? No officer in their right mind,, even Custer would even consider that. The consequences of being caught would be far to great. I'm not an expert on it,but depending on how often you did it,and how big your lie was, the punishment could be dismissal from the Army.They are that serious about these reports. In all honesty after reading your posts, I decided to do a search on the battle. I came up with a few blurbs from some authors.They all agree with you. That there was no attack only the threat of one.We know that non fiction history authors will take from others books certain aspects of an event and so state with a footnote.This taken from J Smiths book,this taken from P Jones book etc. So its entirely possible that only one of them did the research and the rest just copied. Then again it is entirely possible that they all researched independently and all came up with the same conclusion.When people acting independent of each other come up with the same answer, there is reason to believe them So I have a delema. On one hand is Custer words on an AAR in which I believe he would never lie.On the other hand the possible independent research of authors who state the opposite. If my opinion of this event was a stock, based on your posts and the above reasons I would change my recommendation from strong buy, to hold, not ready to say sell yet. In other words I will take the easy way out and say I reserve decision. On a side note how can anyone not have anything but sympathy for Black Kettle.This guy is at Sand Creek, the world is his oyster,and out of nowhere comes Chivington and kills his people.He then moves whats left of them and 4years later winds up at the Washita.Sees some cavalry one day, walks out to his American flag with another white flag to greet the soldiers and see what they want. They immediately start to slaughter everything that breaths. Men , Women, Children.ponies. and if they had a pet prairie dog probably killed that too. This old boy probably thought before he died" Jesus, what did I ever do to deserve this"" Who's cornflakes did I pee into"
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 2, 2010 10:57:08 GMT -6
As for lying--I believe Custer claimed to have killed about 100 warriors--the Cheyenne claimed he killed about a dozen and could name them. Hmmm.
Jerome Greene is a former NPS historian and is considered a pretty good authority. The Wikipedia entry on Washita could be chancy--I believe our good friend David Cornut was banned from Wikipedia for repeatedly editing it to suit his rather radical interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 3, 2010 6:22:35 GMT -6
As to Custer's lying, he was convicted at court martial, his story was not believed (leaving what conclusion?), and while it's touching that you think he wouldn't lie about something important, he clearly did. He was trying to pretend he had to get back to his wife because of an epidemic, but that didn't arrive till after he did, as I recall, and his whole explanation is entirely self serving and false. And he'd deserted his men in the field.
He executed soldiers without charge or trial, and their relatives were trying to get him brought up on charges till the day he died.
His financial affairs aren't that great either, and he left his wife destitute despite her dowry and inheritance. This apparently was a surprise to her. If you believe his 'womanizing' than he lied to her quite a bit, based upon his letters to her. He was a gambler, a dry drunk, and these are things that don't vanish once installed. He had to talk his way out of stuff quite a bit, it seems.
Custer's final count for the Washita dead apparently was about the total for the village, so some investigators dismiss it out of hand. Indian interests would have been served by their exaggerating their dead, but until recently Indians weren't given to that sort of thing. Since then, they have discovered the wonders and uses of the term 'genocide', as the Irish and Lutherans and every squalid and inconsequential group has since.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 3, 2010 12:53:08 GMT -6
Let me see if I understand this--are you saying that the Irish, Lutherans, and Indians are squalid and inconsequential?
We are in agreement, by the way, on Custer's numbers in his report. Obviously exaggerated.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 3, 2010 16:23:59 GMT -6
Yes. But then, I think everyone is squalid and inconsequential when they play victim beyond the facts and claim or imply a non-existent importance or stature to themselves as tribe or individuals through hoped for genetic connection.
Fun! Just after Iceland, Spain, and Greece gave it a go as the most financially irresponsible nation of our times (which includes, of course, the US, and they're worse off than we), the Irish have wrested the trophy away and hold it high. Just wait: it'll be sorrowfully revealed that it's England's fault because of King Billy, the potato famine, Vikings, Balfour, and all those Pakistanis who went there and became employed and don't help the economy by drinking their share. Because they're Muslim.
Poor, poor, Ireland. Just wait. And the Church will try to reinsert itself, so to speak, onto the Irish good side by fanning the xenophobia and historic falsehoods. It's coming.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 3, 2010 17:27:19 GMT -6
It's always easy to tell when things are boring in Boulder. Don't worry, dc, spring will come soon and you can retract your fangs and go on to other business.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 4, 2010 11:43:29 GMT -6
Dark Cloud other than showing your education and the mastery of the English language I have no idea what your point is.All Icould gather from it was it had nothing to do with Custer and was meant to insult somebody.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 4, 2010 13:44:51 GMT -6
You expressed disbelief that Custer would lie on a report. He certainly lied on others which led to the guilty verdict at his court martial. That's called precedent. He told variations of stories in print which do not meld. Reports then were not regarded as reports now. Go to this url and then scroll down to bhist's long posting wherein noted Custer experts talk about this very issue. www.mohicanpress.com/messageboard2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=145&whichpage=8Periodically, people with Irish surnames here will feel the necessity of reminding everyone of the importance of the Irish to the 7th and, in the past, to history. Often, this is at the expense of the Brits or others. Since they feel the need to brag or flense themselves apart from other Americans because it somehow enhances themselves, I feel the need to mock them. Or anyone. Scots, Irish, Native Americans, and others have received expressions of my disdain for their (often baseless) self congratulations. But I'm versatile and willing to take on any chauvinist claptrap. People are pretty much the same, and I don't grant spiritual depths to people simply for losing wars, although that's worked for Native Americans. I am mostly Scot, which means partly Irish, and feel no guilt in slamming my own or others for nonsense. You can go to the various Keogh Fan Boy sites and find little lacking that you'd find at, I guess, Lady Ga-Ga's. They're fan sites by people who have crushes on them. Adults. People whose cover story is they're into history, just like olde women of both genders who like romantic fiction say they like history, although they don't read any or know much about it. This is just like supposed Custer 'experts' who can describe the manufacturing process of every article of 1876 uniforms relevant to the battle, and could not give a coherent description of what the US was doing in that year. Hint: the Indian Wars were never a big deal to the feds.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 4, 2010 15:32:25 GMT -6
Don't worry, benteen, insults are his stock in trade. He's noted for it. That sort of thing is generally not allowed on internet forums. He also seems to have a special hatred for the Irish in general, and Keogh in particular, possibly because he gets better press than Fred Benteen.
Actually, dc, why don't you go for equal time and start a Benteen website?
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 5, 2010 18:18:30 GMT -6
Melani thanks for the heads up DC perhaps I was remiss in explaining my point.Maybe a little too long winded. Let me try again.Would Custer lie on A report, yes.Would he lie on THIS report, no. Exaggerate enemy losses,sure he would.Too hard to disprove.I would guess Custer lumped in the Women and children killed as warriors.But to tell a bold face lie as to enemy response to an army tactic,such as I was attacked on all sides, when you weren't,is putting your career in jeopardy.No Officer even Custer that cared about their career( and we know that Custer cared about his career,it may be the only thing he cared about) would try to pull a stunt like that.My opinion that Custer was attacked is based on that belief.Then again maybe Custer was that foolish to do it. As to your Social comments, my knowledge of ethnic issues is very limited, and I wont get into any debates on that,I am barely holding on in debating the LBH, and I have studied it for years.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 5, 2010 23:17:31 GMT -6
Well, maybe one man's "scattered firing" is another man's "attack". It certainly seems that Custer exaggerated in his report, though I'm not sure at what point that crosses over to an outright "lie" (a favorite dc word). The idea that he maybe killed a hundred or so altogether, and then characterized the women and children as warriors seems like a possibility, and that certainly would be a lie, though one that he could probably get away with. I would definitely accept Jerome Greene as an authority.
|
|