|
Post by rch on Sept 9, 2008 16:09:57 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
In "The Man Who Came to Dinner," Jimmy Durante asks, "Did you ever have the feeling that you wanted to go and still have the feeling that you wanted to stay?"
I'm in the embarrassing position of having issued a farewell, yet I'm still here - well, nothing lost save honor.
DC is the kind of guy who should stay off the Orient Express.
You're the kind of doll who should stay on this Board.
Re: Your Reply # 27
1. Sully's relief is confused. The arguements were techical and legal-like. While Crawford was absent, Custer was content to leave things as they were. Since Crawford never showed and Sheridan did Sully became redundant.
2. Although others may have said McDougall reported last, I don't think McDougall ever said it. The command of the rear guard was an extremely important position on the march. Where Benteen appears to have surrendered independent battalion command when he joined Reno, McDougall continued to act as commander of the rear guard until the perimeter defence was formed on Reno Hill. I don't think it was an accident that McDougall came from the wing that made the Reno Scout or that MaDougall, who was the junior Capt, was the man named to command the rear guard.
3. Custer may have had some input, but others including Sturgis probably had more. At one point Custer was offered command of posts that he really did want and asked to remain directly under Sturgis. Sturgis endorsed that request. Custer was given command of one company of the 7th and one infantry company as the garrison for Elizabethtown KY. That was not exactly an exalted command. It's not clear who chose the companies to go to the Boundary Survey when the regiment went to Dakota. Custer may have chosen the 2 companies that were left behind during the Yellowstone Expedition, but Stanley may have had a say as well and a say in who was left behind to command.
4. You may have seen more photos of Keogh in dress uniform. In any case, it's easy to make something of nothing.
rch
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Sept 9, 2008 18:25:29 GMT -6
rch - "...I'm in the embarrassing position of having issued a farewell, yet I'm still here - well, nothing lost save honor..."
Nawh. No embarrassment or 'honor' lost either way. My dogs' philosophy is - If you can't eat it or play with it - just pee on it and walk away...
Doesn't mean you can't come back and check it out on another day.
BS
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 10, 2008 0:15:28 GMT -6
I have to say that while the romantics among us would like Keogh to have had a "Cheyenne girlfriend," I'm not sure that was actually the case. When he says (and I paraphrase), "Some of them are pretty; I have one that's intelligent," it sounds to me like a joke--some are good-looking but mine wears glasses. He had previously written to Tom that an Indian woman was "a necessary part of an officer's equipment," which he expected to acquire soon. That also sounds like a joke. He also said previously that he didn't find Indian women attractive. So in the absence of any outside testimony--who knows? There may not have been any woman at all.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 10, 2008 7:16:48 GMT -6
It really does not sound like a joke as this espoused innocence of common reference - rather frighteningly - must mean it.
It again violates the term "romantic" when a kept woman - a virtual body slave - is part of the image of someone so described. Women, especially foreign women of another race, are items, equipment, blowup dolls that gave backrubs and fetched things. To pat this into shape as a "girlfriend" relationship - hello? she's a slave - is pretty desperate, and reflective of current desire for a comforting story for the teller's emotional needs rather than anything to do with history.
This is how Custer is nauseatingly distorted for the benefit of his fans. Once the fictional image of a nearly innocent romantic, a knight errant, is implanted, and this because it makes the writer and reader feel good about themselves and their lives not otherwise possible, objective consideration of the guy's actual deeds is tainted in order to maintain it.
That's what happened to Custer, and now the attempt is made to enfold Keogh in this nonsense. It's of interest because it's a microcosm of how the Custer myth became ludicrous.
Doyle is back as well, or someone using that name registered along with a number of other highly suspect new User IDs. This is, and remains, a juvenile tantrum complete with wrists stapled to the forehead and a Max Steiner score and Betty Davis climbs the staircase as idiots weep. This view is supported by the virtural reams of PM's and emails flying about it, as juvenile plots are hatched and alleged adults prance on the balls of their feet waiting to see what happens.
Unbelievable.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 10, 2008 7:26:55 GMT -6
DC, your much-vaunted third-grade education apparently did not include either reading comprehension or intelligible writing skills. Try reading my above post again, slowly, and see if you can understand what I said. And what on earth does your convoluted first sentence mean? You are distorting my statement, not answering it.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 11, 2008 15:50:14 GMT -6
It really does not sound like a joke as this espoused innocence of common reference - rather frighteningly - must mean it. It again violates the term "romantic" when a kept woman - a virtual body slave - is part of the image of someone so described. Women, especially foreign women of another race, are items, equipment, blowup dolls that gave backrubs and fetched things. To pat this into shape as a "girlfriend" relationship - hello? she's a slave - is pretty desperate, and reflective of current desire for a comforting story for the teller's emotional needs rather than anything to do with history. This is how Custer is nauseatingly distorted for the benefit of his fans. Once the fictional image of a nearly innocent romantic, a knight errant, is implanted, and this because it makes the writer and reader feel good about themselves and their lives not otherwise possible, objective consideration of the guy's actual deeds is tainted in order to maintain it. That's what happened to Custer, and now the attempt is made to enfold Keogh in this nonsense. It's of interest because it's a microcosm of how the Custer myth became ludicrous. Doyle is back as well, or someone using that name registered along with a number of other highly suspect new User IDs. This is, and remains, a juvenile tantrum complete with wrists stapled to the forehead and a Max Steiner score and Betty Davis climbs the staircase as idiots weep. This view is supported by the virtural reams of PM's and emails flying about it, as juvenile plots are hatched and alleged adults prance on the balls of their feet waiting to see what happens. Unbelievable. I can agree with the first paragraph but then again, I have not read anything else of Keogh's to get a grasp of what style he wrote in, i.e., serious, tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, etc. How is this conversation reflective of GAC personally? And why must your opinion that those who acknowledge the darker side but prefer to focus on that man's (or anyone's for that matter) positive achievements is indicative of the reader's own life? I could use the same methodology and castigate you to no end for endless things but it achieves nothing except wasting bits and bytes and electricity. I doubt Doyle or Elisabeth are back. You give yourself too big a place in our lives to imagine that we spend all our time trading e-mails and PMs about you and your withering responses and red herrings. Speaking for myself, I sent a quick e-mail hoping she enjoys her vacation from the boards, traded a couple of e-mails with Jeff Broome and Greg Michno about questions I had on Greg's Deadliest Indian War book, sent Jeff and Fred copies of the latest Project From Hell and notified Diane of the spammer recently here. None were about you; well, I did tell Elisabeth "don't let the bastard get you down" so you can perhaps read between the lines on whom I meant. Later, Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 11, 2008 16:36:29 GMT -6
1. I'm not talking about Keogh, who obviously was not innocent.
2. It isn't at ALL reflective of GAC personally. It's about his artificial image, which is indeed often arrived at with tender regard for facts. Look at the nauseating art about him, for example, the pietas, the Valkyries, the newly laundered uniforms. If someone is hardwired to the image of Custer as, for example, a knight errant ebodiment of chivalry (which never existed, and Custer least of all merits inclusion), there are suddenly things he could not have done, would not do, and the evidence - 'evidence', rather - is cherry picked or distorted to maintain that goal regardless of plausibility.
From that comes Custer Was On the Offensive To The Near End, despite the evidence on LSH and environs. From that comes He Would Not Risk His Men Pointlessly, so the Indian numbers must have been low and doable and he was betrayed by cowards and drunks and jealous subordinates. From that comes all sorts of blather in conflict for a guy already convicted of lying and having left men before. And of course, the sutlers were selling booze to the last minute at the Rosebud delta. Donovan says.
And now, an elevated opinion of Keogh is being fluffed, and suddenly there are things he could not, would not do. He just wouldn't, that's why. Or, worse, he surely would do certain things. He just would, that's all. Heroic, faithful, romantic, like a noble war horse that drank, which his horse actually did.
I'm unconvinced letters to Mothers and Women To Be Boinked are in any way reflective of spiritual depths hitherto unappreciated. In any case, it seems clear Keogh kept comfort women sometimes.
And Dear God, how could Connell say Keogh's mere photo electrified certain women beyond the norm? And Mephistopholes-ian -like? (I'm not looking it up.) What slander and without any evidence! Harump!
Well, after a pregnant pause sufficient for most pachyderms and a few locusts, some may have noticed that an illustrative example to that truth isn't far from recognition.
For whatever reason people need heroes, these fabrications distort actuality.
3. There is enough evidence of people coming back under various names if not their own. There was a 'new member' a few days ago as Doyle1876. I give myself no place whatsoever in anyone's lives, but I not unoften get copies of purported communications - sometimes about me - between members. And, there's stuff on the other boards in this line that people enjoy sending me. And, you've opined more than you here admit.
And more to the point, there was nothing said to get E 'down' at all. These are just melodramatic hissy fits, which at least have the benefit of this time including an actual female. Rare, that, hereabouts.
Further:
1. I'm probably the only one here who'd survive the Orient Express, because if in fiction, I've read it. If in reality, I'd know what's fiction. People who postulate actual knight errants in history do not, you see.
2. You can't castigate me for the reasons you claim as my basis. In any case, the issue is: am I correct? A strong case can be made.
Read the damned book, Kansan. You'll agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Sept 11, 2008 21:48:30 GMT -6
I'm unconvinced letters to Mothers and Women To Be Boinked are in any way reflective of spiritual depths hitherto unappreciated. In any case, it seems clear Keogh kept comfort women sometimes. What documentation do you have for "...it seems clear..." other than Keogh's letters? You say yourself above that he was writing to people he was trying to impress, and that it's ridiculous to assume that diaries and letters must always contain the truth. He was writing to his older brother, and I agree, he was probably trying to impress him. My impression of Tom Keogh is that he was the epitome of the rather staid and stiff-necked Victorian gentleman, the one who stayed home and took care of business while Myles was off gallivanting around having adventures. Tom seems to have occasionally taken Myles to task for not being of more assistance with the family financial problems and the care of several unmarried sisters. I think that Myles was not above pushing Tom's buttons every now and then. On February 27, 1867, Myles wrote to Tom from Fort Wallace, "I shall I expect be able to provide myself with a squaw, the necessary article to an officer's full equipment out on the plains.--By the way I have seen some of these squaws and as the Quaker said of the famous statues of females 'I don't hanker after em!'" After Washita he wrote, "We have about ninety squaws spared from our last fight. Some of them are very pretty. I have one that is quite intelligent. It is usual for officers to have two or three lounging around." ( Myles Keogh, p.114.) Both of these comments sound to me like jokes, the sort of thing he would tell Tom just to tease him. He also told his sister Margaret in a letter on March 29, 1868, before Washita, "I sit for my picture with an Indian squaw." Indians were interesting and unusual to the folks back home in Ireland, and Orchard House is still full of various Indian artifacts Myles brought home. Having his picture taken with an Indian woman doesn't necessarily mean he was sleeping with her; after all, Custer had his picture taken with Bloody Knife--and Noonan, for that matter! ;D On the other hand, it also doesn't mean he wasn't sleeping with her--but there is no outside documentation for it that I know of. Everything I know of that he said on the subject does not sound to me as if he was having any sort of actual relationship with an Indian woman, however you characterize that relationship. Keogh was apparently well-known for his courtship of the young ladies that came out to visit (Convis, The Honor of Arms, p. 73), and I am quite sure that he did not go to his grave a virgin. I'm also of the opinion that he probably wasn't getting together with the respectable ladies he was socializing with, so that leaves the professionals. Since Lt. Wallingford was actually court-martialed and kicked out of the Army for publicly consorting with "notorious prostitutes and lewd women," ( Myles Keogh, p. 114) I assume Keogh managed it more privately. But I'm betting they were white. And I don't believe he "kept" them, but more likely went visiting. DC, I find it insulting when you imply that people who say that they have read Donovan's book and liked it must be lying about having read it, since they don't agree with you. I read it, all the way through, I liked it, and I am not lying. I think Billy addressed the specific issues elsewhere. I am pretty sure that there is no book on the subject that does not have any errors or misprints of some kind. There is currently no one called "Doyle1876" listed as a member.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Nov 23, 2008 10:08:33 GMT -6
|
|
montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Dec 3, 2008 9:52:01 GMT -6
Considering the doubt about the correct identification of GAC, are there any accounts that discuss the 1877 recovery of Keogh's body (or of any of the other officers) and the extent to which identification was certain?
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Dec 3, 2008 11:48:53 GMT -6
Michael Sheridan, who oversaw the recovery of the bodies, said that he used a map prepared by Nowlan and that the bodies were recovered easily. He included Custer in that statement, or at least did not exclude him. Since others [LeForge, Herendeen. Caddle] were not so certain about Custer's remains [and Tom's], it is more than just possible that some of the other bodies were not so easily dug up or identified. There were problem's with Nowlan's map and the numbering of the stakes which supposedly marked the officers remains. I do not, however, remember seeing anything specific to that point, or to Keogh.
From his testimony at the RCOI:
"........Behind the position in which I found Lieutenant Calhoun's body was that of Lieutenant Crittenden, who was attached to the regiment at that time. From a quarter to a half mile in rear of that, I found Captain Keogh's body......we found the remains of 40 or 50 officers and men, among others, those f General Custer, Colonel Custer, Captain Yates, Lieutenant Smith, and perhaps one or two others - I don't remember who.........."
You might also check out his official report of his visit in July 1877 and his statement to one of the newspapers to set at rest rumors being circulated about the condition of the field and the recovery of the officers' bodies .
Gordie
|
|
montea
Junior Member
Posts: 87
|
Post by montea on Dec 3, 2008 22:04:50 GMT -6
As I'm quickly discovering in my short time as a member, Gordie, you are not only a wealth of information, but truly considerate and a gentleman. Thank you. MA
"The arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 17, 2017 1:03:17 GMT -6
Scapular or scapulary. Taming the Sioux. The Passing of Custer. We found a soldier sitting against the dead body of his horse. He was alive, but had been shot through the abdomen. He could speak a little Sioux, and he said...... We were looking around and we found Captain keogh, but left him alone, for we saw that he wore a scapulary, and we said that he was a Black Robe man.
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Feb 17, 2017 10:09:35 GMT -6
Does that mean he was wearing both a necklace and a BlackRobe thing ya think?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 17, 2017 17:48:49 GMT -6
I suspect that he started the day in Buckskin. Either Paints Brown is accepted as first hand evidence or Frank B. Fiske did a Humphres Miller. To my mind after a little research, the Ogalala hostile joined the Indian Police and was amongst those involved in Sitting Bulls fatal arrest during the Ghost Dance uprising.
|
|