|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 1, 2008 3:46:34 GMT -6
That "bravest man" story is awkward. In the earliest version, Red Horse says "There were two men of this description, looking very much alike, both having long yellowish hair"; in other versions, it's sometimes rendered simply as "There were two men looking alike, both having long yellowish hair" -- in other words, as a complete non sequitur to the "bravest man" story. We're very much at the mercy of the translator here. Since the "long yellowish hair" wouldn't have fitted Custer either, he having had his hair cut short, it could be as you say: that Red Horse was tailoring his story to what he thought the whites wanted to hear ... There's another description sounding more like Keogh that turns up in a couple of other stories. Two Moon talks of a man in buckskins with "long black hair and mustache" who led some kind of a breakout -- but this was "towards the river", so can't have been him. (Harrington, maybe? The famous Co. C charge?) And one that's closer yet, from Wooden Leg, in the story of the wounded captain who "rose from the dead": he says that this man "had a big strong body. His cheeks were plump. All over his face was a stubby black beard. His mustache was much longer than his other beard, and it was curled up at the ends." (This comes from Marquis.) Then there's Little Soldier's account of the officer who died still clutching his horse's reins. The spookiness of either of these incidents might have been enough to account for his being left comparatively untouched. However, there's one other thing to suggest that he'd won Indian admiration in some way: the fact that his gauntlets and his company guidon were found folded together and carefully stowed away "in an Indian reticule" at the Slim Buttes camp. Other guidons were treated more cavalierly, cut up for pillow-cases and the like, so maybe there's some significance in this.
tatanka, I'd not heard the tale of the eagle tattoo before. Do you happen to know where it comes from? Someone, I think it was McClernand, said his conclusion was that once the Indians found the Agnus Dei, Keogh "was not further mutilated", implying that something had been done to him; the lance-through-tattoo story would fit that. (No-one else suggests any mutilation at all, however, so McClernand may simply have meant "further than his wounds".)
Edward S. Luce had a touching theory that the Indians thought the Agnus Dei represented a bighorn sheep, thus the deity of the place, thus powerful medicine. It's pretty far-fetched -- though no less so than the notion that they reeled back in awe from a Christian symbol. There must have been any number of men wearing crucifixes, St. Christophers and the like, yet it didn't spare them mutilation. In fact, I don't think we hear of anyone on Custer's field being left with jewellery intact; fingers had been cut off to get at rings, and so on. It's unlikely they'd have scrupled for a moment to chop his head off to get at the Agnus Dei, if they'd wanted. It was clearly left in place for a reason: either superstition (big medicine) or respect. And logic says that it wouldn't have been seen as big medicine if he hadn't fought well, so possibly it comes down to the same thing in the end?
|
|
walkingstar
New Member
Life is but a dream...
Posts: 39
|
Post by walkingstar on Sept 1, 2008 12:28:23 GMT -6
E.S. Connell (Son of the Morning Star) gives another possibility of why Keogh's medallion may have protected him; a leather pouch. It seems that the Indians kept powerful tokens (Big Medicine) in leather pouches themselves.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 2, 2008 8:57:49 GMT -6
Which would make sense ... But as with everything about LBH, it's problematic. The story goes that it was Keogh's Papal medals he carried in the leather pouch, not the Agnus Dei. And that gets even more complicated, because on the one hand, the medals were safely returned to his family; on the other, there's a persistent myth that they were taken by the Indians, and -- better still -- that when Sitting Bull was killed, he was found to be wearing Keogh's Pro Petri Sede medal. Now ... it's not impossible that Nowlan might have got replicas of the medals to give to Keogh's family; they were replicas already, as the originals had been lost in a fire at the Galt House in Louisville in (I think) 1865, and Keogh had got a friend in Paris to forward him replacements. Nowlan didn't visit Ireland until 1878/9, so there was plenty of time. But ... all Keogh's belongings had been sent to his friends in Auburn immediately after the battle, and the absence of his medals would surely have been noticed. Further, Libbie Custer remarks in one of her books ( Tenting on the Plains, I think?) that Keogh wore the Agnus Dei in plain sight; and everyone from the battlefield who mentions it implies that it was on a chain around his neck (some say silver, some say gold -- can no-one agree on anything!!!), which means no leather pouch, or at least not for that. A really far-fetched scenario (meaning: I've made it up) is this. He did have a Cheyenne girlfriend -- to put it euphemistically -- at Fort Hays in 1869. (That part's true. He said so, and said she was "quite intelligent", which suggests a fair bit of communication between them beyond the merely carnal.) Suppose (1) she'd made him a medicine pouch as a gift, and (2) her handiwork was recognised at LBH? Assuming she'd been happy about her time with him, and had spoken well of the way he'd treated her -- which is likely, given his known character -- this in itself might have been enough to spare him mutilation once the pouch was found. ("Hey, don't touch this guy, he's the one XXXXX really liked.") Not quite as glorious as respect for his actions in battle -- though I'm sure those were respect-worthy too -- but another possibility?
|
|
|
Post by rch on Sept 2, 2008 9:59:56 GMT -6
My goodness, yes. It does seem to have taken him a little while to realise quite what he was up against. From the letters, reports etc. that survive from 1866/7, it looks as if he started out on the assumption that Custer would behave like any previous commander he'd had: that he'd rely on Keogh for front-line intelligence, would value his advice and judgement, and, in short, would act as if they were both on the same side and working for a common goal, no egos involved. He got his first real lesson to the contrary in May of 1867. He'd expressed himself perhaps a little colourfully on the subject of the manpower problem; Custer pulled rank and slapped him down in no uncertain terms. I think he knew from then on that this wasn't going to be quite like the Keogh/commander relationships he was used to. Custer's ego really got in his own way quite dreadfully. Having gone to a lot of trouble to get Keogh into his regiment, he then proceeded to waste his capabilities throughout the whole ten years. It may be that having seen how swiftly and easily Keogh had taken to frontier conditions (that "adaptability" again) while he, Custer, was still struggling, he lacked the confidence to dare to risk being outshone. At all events, he made zero sensible use of him in the 1867 campaign; got rid of him, along with Sully, from the Washita campaign; and kept him as far away as possible from the Yellowstone and Black Hills campaigns. Not the way most commanders would employ the talents available to them, I think. Poor Keogh must have been grinding his teeth at times ... Elisabeth, I disagree. Except for the assignment of Co I to Ft Lincoln in 1875 and while on the LBH campaign Custer seems to have had no control over Keogh's assignments. The early months of the 7th Cavalry's history are pretty confusing. Although Custer had reported to the regiment in early Nov 1866, Maj Davidson remained in command of the regiment until Col Smith reported on 26 Nov. I suppose it's possible that Custer had temporary command of Ft. Riley or the geographic district. Custer first assumed command of the regiment for about a week in Feb and March, 1867, and then for 4 months from late Mar to Jul. Company I remained at Ft Wallace for all that time and while Custer was court-martialed and started serving out his suspension. When Company I went into the field with Sully, Custer was still on suspension. Keogh apparently went on to Sully's staff voluntarily at a time when Keogh seems to have been hoping for a promotion to Major in the Inspector General's Department, the department in which Buford held Regular Army rank at the time of his death. I doubt Custer did anything to get rid of Sully. That probably was something Sheridan intended to do from the moment he called for Custer to come west. Keogh's departure was incidental. After the Washita campaign and through Aug 1874, if Company I's or any of the other companies' assignments were up to the regimental commander, then it was Sturgis who made them. Except for a period of about a month in the fall of 1869, Sturgis was in command of the regiment from 7 Jun 69 to 31 Aug 74, when Sturgis went on leave before assuming command of the Mounted Recruiting Service. The only time, during Custer's command of the 7th, when Company I changed station was the 1875 move from Ft Totten to Ft Lincoln. In other words, the record is the reverse of what you stated. Custer did one other thing for Keogh. Keogh was in charge of the 3 company rear guard on the morning of 25 Jun 1876. Custer, if he was so determined to keep Keogh down, could have left Keogh in command of the rear guard of one company. It was Keogh's turn after all. Instead he replaced Keogh with McDougall. There is one other minor thing. In the 1870's when the Cavalry started wearing helmets, to keep the helmet from being lost while riding cords were worn. There is no existing photo of Custer wearing the cords in the regulation manor. He seems always to have worn the cords on his left side. Only 3 other officers of the 7th were photographed wearing the cords the same way - Yates, A. E. Smith, and Keogh, an homage no doubt. rch
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Sept 2, 2008 10:02:21 GMT -6
Ladies:
Connell was probably anticipating Elisabeth's outre ruminating [no offense meant] on the subject of the leather pouch - maybe Keogh had secretly converted to Judaism and there was a Star of David on the asefaetida [sp] bag.
Actually, it IS conceivable that Keogh WAS wearing a medicine bag on a leather thong around his neck - whether or not fashioned by his Cheyenne inamorata. It would have contained some charms to protect him and to give him strength in battle to protect the people, something on the order of some unusual stones, a small feather or two, and perhaps a bone or two [or a coin or a bullet or......], and might or might not have been beaded. A warrior seeing this pouch would have taken it, so as to acquire some of the power of his enemy, particularly if that enemy had distinguished himself in the fight, as Keogh might have done [one could argue that point forever].
There IS good evidence for the leather medicine pouch in that it was not around his neck when his body was found and identified, showing by its very absence that it had indeed been cut off by an unknown warrior - unless Connell gave a source which names the warrior .
Of course, we're accepting as gospel that Keogh was not "further mutilated" - a rather large assumption given the propensity for some of the witnesses to modify their comments on the subject of mutilations somewhat.
See also that remarkable scene penned by a superb writer [LOL] describing the finding of Keogh's body by a warrior - it's in the thread given over to something or other. Elisabeth will know the one I mean. While it's total fiction, it's as likely as any other scenario.
Regards,
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Sept 2, 2008 10:05:55 GMT -6
rch:
Great information, as usual. Thank you.
Gordie
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 2, 2008 10:10:14 GMT -6
Judas.
Look at it this way. Anyone not blond was called ugly by the Vikings. Hence MacLeod, son of Ugly. That's not to say Leod didn't put cows off their feed and make his wife think of Denmark at need, but it's the sort of thing in reverse that would apply to the Indians, nearly all of whom had black, black hair. Anything not black might as well be blond, even if to whites - who commonly had the distinctions in their lives to look at - there were myriad variations worthy of correct description, to Indians it was black like us, or bottle blond. Other. Not Us.
Anyone with brown hair was blond to them.
Further, a mercenary calling a local comfort girl "intelligent" should not be viewed as significant spiritual appreciation for her values and comradship and conversational abilities on her fascinating life. It could mean she knew to keep her mouth shut, not bother him, keep his cup full, and assume the position at need. You take letters from and to his family, people he needed to impress, and assume you know the man beneath the pose. That's absurd, nearly as ignorant as reading diaries and assuming that some law of nature demands naught but truth be written within.
A guy who treats supposed savage but compliant women in complete thrall of the Stockholm Syndrome as little more than a tour bus tube sock - regardless of his charm in civil company - is no gallant knight. But then, beyond William the Marshall and one or two others, none were. Chivarly WAS a fable told to keep the peons in line.
When history is subjected to the emotional needs of the present, it ceases being history. Keogh was a thug for hire, even if he spoke like Pierce Brosnan in the ears of those he raped.
|
|
tatanka
Full Member
Live for today like there was no tomorrow
Posts: 125
|
Post by tatanka on Sept 2, 2008 11:50:16 GMT -6
Elisabeth. I can't remember where I read the story of the Agnus Dei medal and the eagle tattoo. Maybe Custers' Fall? But I'm not sure. Your theory that the medal coupled with Keoghs' bravery stopped any further mutilation certainly holds water.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Sept 2, 2008 12:36:13 GMT -6
Crazy Horse himself was not black haired. Or everyone conspired to lie about it. Which I doubt. There must have been others like him.
While there's nothing wrong with framing the faults of the famous, (nice alliteration, eh?) I often contemplate the things that precipitate your character assinations. It's all a mystery to me when I consider Mr. Donovan, who I am firmly convinced you will hound to his grave for his 'literary failures' which you have advanced to near criminal proportions or the fact I've yet to hear a negative word about, for instance, Benteen. Although I suppose it's possible you consider him a kindred spirit.
And yet I read and enjoy your blog almost daily. Very confusing to this mere mortal.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 2, 2008 14:12:12 GMT -6
It is said CH was lighter skinned than most, although hadn't heard he had brown hair. There were increasing numbers with lighter skin and hair because of abductions, etc, unsurprisingly. The famous Commanche 'half-breed' whose mother was abducted and whose name eludes me at present who scared the hell out of everyone and then became the head honcho of Texas for a while. Quanta Parker? Something like. Pretty big guy but wasn't as dark as some.
Apparently, there is a recessive gene and a highly interesting genetic tale in Australian aborigines, whose children often sport blond hair early in life and 'always' have, but lose it by the teens.
But for the point, an Indian without a huge vocabulary for different hair shades or need to really notice them every day might well call anything not 'normal' to him yellow or blond or whatever the translator thought best. Just saying that because it comes down to us as yellow probably means the Indian just meant it wasn't black. A guess, but the Viking issue points to it.
The point is missed; there are no character assassinations. I would neither care nor be shocked that Benteen had kept women in his life, although his snobbery and racism would probably preclude these choices of Custer and Keogh. What annoys is the selection of exclusive evidence, and Keogh is elevated by stuff barely above notes from a mother. It's not how people treat peers and superiors, society women he wants to boink and yet have further options - "you meet the same people going up that you do when you're sliding down" is a good thing to keep before you - it's how they treat the less fortunate beneath them. Condescension and cruelty there must be included. A kept woman, ipso facto, is a cruel choice, indistinguishable from slavery, since there would be fear if they opted out to their well being and that of their family.
It's fairly amazing that of those who claim to have read all of Donovan's book, they don't catch the curious choices of things noted and not, and that there is a definite conclusion desired that, really, isn't supported by even a majority of evidence, as we call it. It's very Ward Churchill in manner from the other side of the coin. But then, it's hard to believe those who claim to have read it have done so, given the lack of specifics in their posts about it.
|
|
|
Post by doyle1876 on Sept 2, 2008 17:45:51 GMT -6
Darkcloud - I can't be bother to read your self-righteous, opinionated attempts to revise history anymore. Your ignorant and, of lately, insulting posts have added little to the information volunteered by members of this board who either have a willingness to share their expertise and knowledge or, like myself, have a desire to learn about this period of history.
You offer nothing to debates but pompous opinions that are rarely backed up by facts. Most recently, you sat in judgment of the Irish participants in the 1860 Papal Wars on another thread, cheering on Garibaldi but were blissfully unaware that he had no part to play in that section of the conflict. You are now trawling the message board ridiculing Keogh, primarily I believe as a personal crusade against another member of this board. However, your 21st century opinions on Keogh are as irrelevant as most of the claptrap you post.
I am happy to have discovered a number of fine people and historians on this site over the last year.
Slan
Doyle
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 3, 2008 6:09:23 GMT -6
So sorry to see you go ...
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 3, 2008 7:16:55 GMT -6
rch,
I take your points, but respectfully beg to differ on the following:
(1) Getting rid of Sully. Sheridan may have had it in mind all along, but if so Sully was blissfully unaware, since he'd joined in the request for Custer to be allowed back. Custer ostensibly simply replaced Elliott as field commander of the 7th Cavalry, with Sully still in overall command of the expedition. It was only when Sully, fearing he'd be outranked by Crawford once (if) his troops arrived, asserted his right to retain command on the basis of his brevet rank that Custer trumped that with his own brevet rank. Since Sully, as a District commander, could hardly be expected to act as subordinate to a mere regimental commander, Custer must have anticipated that if he won the argument, Sully would have to go. It was put to Sheridan for arbitration, and he then decided the matter in Custer's favour. So in that sense, Custer did take active steps to wrest command from Sully.
(2) Rearguard on June 25th. Everyone tells us that Custer had declared that the order of march that day would be determined by the order in which companies reported readiness, rather than by whose turn it was to do what. McDougall was last, thus got the rearguard duty. Thus Custer wasn't doing Keogh a favour; it was simply how the dice fell. (What remains unclear is whether he then did Keogh a favour by assigning him an extra company to make up for the missing Co. B, or whether the three-company battalion that was his right by rank was deemed still to include B. The evidence is mixed, and Edgerly's statement that he gave Keogh command "strictly in accordance with his rank" doesn't help to clarify it.)
(3) Granted, Sturgis was in command for the periods you state. None the less, it would be surprising if he made his dispositions without consulting his field commander in any way; Custer will surely have had the opportunity to express his preferences, even if it was Sturgis who made the final decisions.
(4) As for the cords: well, maybe. But there are other photos of Keogh doing non-regulation things with his uniforms that Custer did not do with his own. And the photos of Keogh wearing the cords in non-regulation style are dated from a period when the two men were stationed in different places -- both in Kentucky, admittedly, but some miles apart. While it's not impossible that they might have run into each other in, say, Louisville occasionally, there's no record to suggest they did, and therefore no reason to think Keogh had seen how Custer wore his cords. (If any homage was going on, it may even have been the other way round -- as Custer didn't arrive at his trademark style of facial hair until after he'd met Keogh in 1862. But of course that's not a point I'd wish to press!)
Actually, I think I'm going to go as well. It's impossible to sustain an adult conversation with the hyperactive child DC in the room screaming "look at me!" constantly. He has no interest in the truth of history; only in making, and, he hopes, winning debating points. This approach advances nothing. Too much ambient noise.
I've had a great time here, and have learned a lot. My thanks to all serious contributors, and especially to Diane; it's been good. Sorry to leave. But just as I'd withdraw from a bar-room if a thug started throwing the furniture around, I'm withdrawing now. Enough already.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 3, 2008 17:23:46 GMT -6
Congratulations dc. You are a worthy successor to David Cornut. Why Diane thinks you're cute is beyond me. You have now managed to drive two of the most knowledgeable and civilized people on this board away, entirely because you insist on being a jerk. And half the time you don't even know what you're talking about.
I fully expect to be castigated for this comment. Ask me if I care.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 3, 2008 19:49:29 GMT -6
Nobody was driven off. Nobody has to acknowledge a post that supposedly offends them which, in any case, are only on a limited number of threads, easy to ignore.
|
|