|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2008 12:20:07 GMT -6
Apparently Custer couldn't keep his mouth shut and may have been the last one to tell if you wanted a secret kept.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 29, 2008 13:48:55 GMT -6
It seems like Merrill was on some other people's list of people not to send Christmas cards to:
"Major Merrill, in command of the Federal forces stationed at Yorkville, certainly not an unbiased witness in tbe matter, but with a strong leaning against the white people of South Carolina, and an acknowledged republican, testifies to the bad character of Rose, and the current belief that he fired the volley, or caused it to be done."
"Major Merrill's principal mission at Yorkville seemed to be, from his own statement, to get up a list of the whippings administered to the blacks by the Ku-Klux, including a period of time of nearly a year prior to his arrival at Yorkville. He did not seem to take any interest in what the carpet-baggers and negroes were doing in the meantime, he being sent there to keep the peace, he thought he was fully performing his duty by noting the acts and doings of one side only. he says he was acting under instructions from General Terry, and it is presumable that General Terry was acting under orders from the War Department at Washington. No good man will object to their operations against the Ku-Klux; but when this whole investigation, whether it was so intended or not, will be used for party purposes against the white people of South Carolina, as responsible for the actions of the Ku-Klux against the negroes, it would seem to be proper that the acts of both sides should be known. This idea never seemed to have entered the impartial mind of Major Merrill, or his superiors, whether a general commanding, or department, or the Government. The major, in his examination, thus awkwardly attempts to wriggle through an explanation of this matter."
The above as well as other references to Merrill can be found in 1872 Report of the U.S. Congressional Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States vol. III-IV.
Google Books has it along with Armes's book, The Ups and Downs of an Army Officer (or something along that line).
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 30, 2008 3:17:47 GMT -6
There are indications that another person Merrill failed to impress was Keogh.
In the Langellier/Cox/Pohanka biography of Keogh, there's a brief mention (p. 115) of the court-martial of 1st Lt. Jacob Henry Shellabarger at Fort Harker in June 1869. Keogh was a member of the court, while Merrill was Judge Advocate. Shellabarger was found guilty of drunken cavorting, and dismissed from the service. The story then goes on: "Following his dismissal, Shellabarger used political influence in an attempt to force his reinstatement, as he felt he had been 'framed' and that Major Merrill was out to get him. Although President Grant declined to reappoint him, Shellabarger continued trying in 1870, 1872, 1876, and again in 1878. In April of that year, he wrote to his cousin claiming that Keogh had attempted to help and advise him and that Keogh and [Captain] Thompson had told him that Merrill had swayed the court against him." Obviously Keogh was dead by then and could neither confirm nor deny, but there's no obvious reason for Shellabarger to lie to his own cousin. Assuming that what he says is true, then, within little more than six months of joining the 7th Cavalry Merrill has already been tagged as a wrong'un by (1) Keogh, known for his integrity, and (2) Captain Thompson, a lawyer by training, thus well able to judge what Merrill was up to in court.
So (again assuming this is true) it could be that when the Lauffer case came along, there were plenty of people around who didn't trust Merrill an inch and found the "bribe" story all too credible?
Kind of interesting to note that the Third Man in the Merrill-Lauffer card games was Captain Bankhead, an old acquaintance of Keogh's from Fort Wallace. He's in a way the missing link in the whole Lauffer affair, as he'd have been able to say whether the stakes played for were as high as Merrill claimed ($500) or as low as Lauffer said ($25). As far as I can make out to date, he doesn't seem to have said anything publicly either way. But if he had slipped a quiet word to any of his 7th Cavalry contacts, it could explain the vehemence with which Custer then pursues the matter. With Merrill already tainted from the Shellabarger court-martial, plus the personal animus from Merrill's testimony to the Benzine Board, there'd be ample reason for Custer to go after him even without Armes cheering him on from the sidelines ...
|
|
|
Post by cefil on Mar 30, 2008 8:25:55 GMT -6
In A Terrible Glory, Jim Donovan describes the situation thusly:
"Though Custer had earlier requested Merrill’s presence with the Seventh, he had concluded that he had little use for Merrill. Neither, apparently, did Benteen, Reno, or most of the regiment’s other duty officers, since Merrill had seen little service on the frontier in his eight years with the Seventh. Reno would later call him a “notorious coward and shirk,” and Benteen would brand him a “chump,” killing two reputations with one stone by declaring, “Poor a soldier as Reno was, he was a long way ahead of Merrill.” Custer’s original request for Merrill had come about because the regiment was short on field-grade officers, and Custer had no faith in Reno’s ability to lead much of anything. Merrill was an associate of Belknap’s, and probably a Republican, which points up Custer’s desperation."
cefil
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Mar 30, 2008 9:31:21 GMT -6
Perhaps the genesis of all the animosity against Merrill is contained in the description of him in the Barry C. Johnson work "Custer, Reno, Merrill and the Laufer Case" where Johnson says "Intellectually, he was probably the superior not only of the other field officers, but also of most of his own contemporaries in the Seventh. With this capacity went an excruciating precision and verbosity of expression, and a style which tended to be unctuously didactic."
If that is an accurate description and there is no reason to doubt it, it is little wonder that he was disliked, on the simple basis that nobody likes a smug, pedantic smart*rse. Add to that his ability to obtain 'soft' postings and his Republican politics being opposed to the Democrat leanings of most of the other Seventh officers and you have an outsider, always out of step with his colleagues.
Not difficult to dislike then and easy to become enraged with when his formal correspondence contains such phrases as "Without wish to contumaciously insist that the action of my superior was wrong, I respectfully submit now the question whether an application for a court of inquiry in the premises will be entertained?" Perhaps only the legally trained Terry would have known his precise meaning immediately!
It is ironic that the only wound he received and that from a ricochet should eventually cut short his career.
Hunk
|
|
|
Post by markland on Mar 30, 2008 14:18:25 GMT -6
Interesting how these are all inter-related. From a notebook describing the Ft, Hays flood of 1867, NARA microfilm series "Selected Kansas Posts" T837 roll 3C. Asst. Quartermaster's Office Fort Hays, Ks. June 13th, 1867 Bvt. Maj. Gen'l L.C. Easton Chf. Q.M. Dept. of the Mo. Fort Leavenworth, Ks. General, I have the honor to make the following Report. On the night of the 7th inst. this place was visited by a most terrible and destructive storm, it commenced about 10 1/2 o'clock P.M. and continued some five (5) hours and at 4 o'clock on the morning of the 8th the entire garrison was flooded, by the middle of the day the water was from three to five feet deep on the site of the fort, many of my employees and the Enlisted men making narrow escapes with their lives and losing most of their clothing and other private property. Eight (8) men were drowned, five of Gen'l Smith's Orderlies, two of the 38th Infty., and my principle Herder, Mr. Eli Watson (Civilian) who lost his life while attempting to save the lives of several mules. He was an excellent and trusty man. Every effort was made on the part of the Q Master Employees, to save the Public property and they succeeded in saving the greatest portion but all in a damaged condition. At about 12 Me of the 8th I ordered my Employees to construct Boats with wagon boxes by putting Paulins around them and by this means the entire Garrison, by order of Gen'l A.J. Smith, Comdg. Dist. of U. Ark., crossed to the east side of the north fork of Big Creek at 6 1/2 P.M. for safety, and encamped on a high bluff for the night. Six bodies of the drowned men have been recovered (four of the orderlies, one of the 38th Infty. and my Herder, Mr. Watson) and were buried near the post, but not in a suitable manner for want of Lumber, being compelled to make the coffins from Cracker boxes, &c. Since the water abated I have had all the packages of Clothing and other property opened and the contents thoroughly dried and every means taken to prevent the stores from becoming a total loss. I am General Very Respectfully Your Obt. Servt. Sam'l B. Lauffer Capt. and A.Q.M. U.S.A.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Mar 31, 2008 2:20:35 GMT -6
Fascinating. This bears out Barry C. Johnson's characterisation of him as a pernickety, dull, conscientious man-with-clipboard type ... The last person you'd expect to start making up outrageous stories about someone like Merrill, really, however annoying Merrill might be.
Found a story yesterday about Bankhead and Lauffer having a row with Buffalo Bill about a government horse and mule he'd been lent. He was supposed to hand them over at Fort Wallace, where Lauffer was then QM, but left them with a hotel-keeper in Sheridan instead. A clerk there spread the tale that he'd sold them to the hotel-keeper. Cody, pausing only to beat up the clerk, roared out to Fort Wallace to explain matters, and was summarily booted off the premises by the combined team of Bankhead and Lauffer. So it appears the two were close, and that Bankhead's unlikely to be a neutral source on the bribe affair even if he did ever say anything about it. (It makes the court-martial even odder, doesn't it: to have your own former commanding officer sitting on the court that tries you ...? You'd think the prosecution would object to that.)
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 14, 2008 3:20:05 GMT -6
Things get more curious yet. In the New York Times archive there's a piece dated March 5th 1876 referring to "the part which George T. Robinson, of Baltimore, and George A. Armes have taken in the Belknap disgrace". It doesn't specify the "part"; however, what it seems to imply is that Armes was quite deeply involved in precipitating the affair. And I see from Touched by Fire, p. 257, that Gray confirms this in Centennial Campaign -- saying that Armes kicked the whole thing off via a piece in the New York Herald.
So here he is, embroiled in both of the hearings that got Custer into trouble that spring. It's beginning to look as if there could be something well worth investigating in the full history of the Custer-Armes relationship. At every turn, Custer is dancing to Armes' tune. Armes is using Custer as a cat's-paw, and Custer is eagerly going along with it. Is it just Custer's naivety? Or does Armes have some kind of financial hold over him? (Armes is quite rich by the mid-1870s, it seems, having become a real-estate dealer in Washington, while Custer, as we know, is desperately strapped for money.) Or what? There could be a whole strand of Custer's life story -- his motivations, etc. -- that we don't yet know about.
Is there a biography of Armes out there anywhere, do you know? Or are the only available sources his own book and the Barry C. Johnson paper?
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on May 14, 2008 13:46:05 GMT -6
That is fascinating, stuff, Elisabeth! I tend to think it might have been caused by Custer's naivety ... he did seem less "people aware" than Libbie. I couldn't find much more than you could find on Google, but I am quite interested in the whole Ames matter. If your hunches prove true, they could provide an interesting new way to explore the Boy General's life story ... or later life story.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on May 15, 2008 9:19:50 GMT -6
Things get more curious yet. In the New York Times archive there's a piece dated March 5th 1876 referring to "the part which George T. Robinson, of Baltimore, and George A. Armes have taken in the Belknap disgrace". It doesn't specify the "part"; however, what it seems to imply is that Armes was quite deeply involved in precipitating the affair. And I see from Touched by Fire, p. 257, that Gray confirms this in Centennial Campaign -- saying that Armes kicked the whole thing off via a piece in the New York Herald. So here he is, embroiled in both of the hearings that got Custer into trouble that spring. It's beginning to look as if there could be something well worth investigating in the full history of the Custer-Armes relationship. At every turn, Custer is dancing to Armes' tune. Armes is using Custer as a cat's-paw, and Custer is eagerly going along with it. Is it just Custer's naivety? Or does Armes have some kind of financial hold over him? (Armes is quite rich by the mid-1870s, it seems, having become a real-estate dealer in Washington, while Custer, as we know, is desperately strapped for money.) Or what? There could be a whole strand of Custer's life story -- his motivations, etc. -- that we don't yet know about. Is there a biography of Armes out there anywhere, do you know? Or are the only available sources his own book and the Barry C. Johnson paper?
The only references to Armes in Dowd's 'Custer Lives' are to his 'Ups & Downs..' and to the Johnson work 'Custer, Reno etc.,' so except for newspaper articles, it seems that is all there is on the man. I think Tricia is right about Custer's naivety being the most likely reason for his getting embroiled in the whole Belknap/Merrill mess. I feel sure that Armes, being a shrewd man, would know how to pander to Custer's ego to extract from him the information Armes required and that no financial reward would have been involved. As far as I know, there is nothing in Custer's writings to Libbie at the time that refers to any involvement with Armes and I cannot envisage GAC passing up any opportunity to brag to his 'Durl' if he thought he had been clever in making some money out of a situation. Hunk
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on May 15, 2008 12:45:16 GMT -6
Hunk, thanks for that. Someone's missing out, though: he'd be a fabulous subject for a biography!
You could well be right about the money side of things. However ... he seems to have done his best at this time to keep Libbie in blissful ignorance of exactly how badly off he was; the Justh note, for instance, came (allegedly) as a total shock. And courtesy of the O'Neil Scrapbook IX that you so kindly lent me, we know that he was telling porkies [translation for US readers: rhyming slang -- porkies = pork pies = lies] about having already signed the contract for the lecture tour by January 1876. So if an Armes financial connection had involved not Armes making him rich, but Armes subbing him out of some of his trouble, he might have preferred to keep quiet about it.
But yes, Custer does seem to have been perfectly ready to go along with Armes' little games even where there's no obvious gain for him. (Buel, Lauffer, etc.) So by 1876, Armes probably had the measure of him very well indeed, and would know which buttons to press ...
|
|