|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 27, 2008 22:17:50 GMT -6
In another thread, I wondered why Custer is the object of so much ridicule today. This sort of exercise can only perpetuate that view. I seriously doubt they cautioned the kids not to judge him by today's standards. The trial was a re-creation of Custer's court martial in the 1860's for going absent without leave when he abandoned a post with 75 soldiers, for illegally shooting a deserter without due course of law, and for dereliction of duty, a charge based on riding his horses so hard that several of them died.
Custer was originally sentenced to one year of suspension. His panel this time around was much more harsh, sentencing him to two years in prison, a reduction in rank to lieutenant general., and the loss of privilege to be called General.
After deliberating for about 15 minutes, the panel members appeared to be disgusted with Custer's actions.
"Are you saying you love your horses more than your men?" one panel member asked, referring to Custer's assertion that no one "is a better horse-lover than I am." Article: www.themercury.com/news/article.aspx?articleId=68ceb93def42423f849659e6bcf91a74 |
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Apr 27, 2008 22:50:31 GMT -6
A "reduction" in rank to Lt. General??? Seeing he was a Lt. Colonel and Brevet Major General at the time, Custer would gladly accept this verdict! And these were military dependants too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 29, 2008 12:58:07 GMT -6
Funny! I figured the reporter meant Lt. Colonel, but you could be right that the kids didn't know the ranks. Any general would take that reduction!
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 29, 2008 13:16:01 GMT -6
Any general would take that reduction! Not Washington or Grant. |
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Apr 29, 2008 15:29:43 GMT -6
I didn't know where to ask this question- is there a tutorial on how to post a photo on this board? Now that I've become semi-computer literate I would like to learn. I know I can send it to Diane but lately have been filling computer cocky. Help?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 29, 2008 19:46:26 GMT -6
Scout-- Your swagger is apparent, even from 120 miles away. Enjoy it! It's purty easy to do once you get the hang of it. What I do is scan a given photo into my pc and then load the image on a webserver (I use Photobucket) ... you need a web address to be able to transfer a photo onto this site. I go to my album and choose an image, making sure to cut and paste the http:// address. Then, I begin a post, then go back to modify it and click on the "painting" icon--it looks like a little landscape--and fill the middle of the two HTML prompts: ![]() insert address here [/img]. I think that's how it appears. If you need more specific instructions, drive on over and I can give you a two minute tutorial. It's easier to physically show the entire process. Actually, if you have any questions, just ask. --t. |
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Apr 29, 2008 19:50:33 GMT -6
Funny! I figured the reporter meant Lt. Colonel, but you could be right that the kids didn't know the ranks. Any general would take that reduction! Diane-- I come from a civvy family and married into an Air Force clan ... even then I had no idea about rank or whatever. I did learn my father-in-law was a Chief Master Sergeant and just how cool that rank is ... but apart from being able to recognise the relative importance of generals and privates, I had no idea of all of them in-between. I didn't get the system until I started writing the book! Now if I could only teach General Sheridan .... --t. |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Apr 29, 2008 21:49:02 GMT -6
I don't expect civilians to get it, but you would think the military kids might know and certainly the JAG officers should know. That's why, as I told stevewilk, I think the reporter probably got it wrong.
Fred -- good point! I was thinking of live ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 30, 2008 7:14:09 GMT -6
Well, the reporter clearly got it wrong, but then again, if the New York Times gets so many of the captions on their pictures wrong, if the New Yorker magazine writer screws up the details on a recent article about a frolicking romp-- in pictures-- through Auschwitz, then I guess the foolishness of some local stiff isn't too bad! We even had a guy down here who couldn't tell the difference between the army's 3rd Infantry Regiment and the 3rd Infantry Division.
There was a time-- and I guess this still may be the case-- when an officer's title superseded his actual rank. That was the case with John Pershing and even George Washington. I am not sure if Washington ever wore four stars-- he certainly didn't wear five-- but his title, "General of the Armies of the United States," makes him the highest ranking officer in our history. Pershing's title-- again, he never wore 5 stars-- was "General of the Army of the United States." Notice the subtle difference?
Admiral Dewey bore the same rank as Pershing, though as a naval officer (and I am not sure of his exact title, something like Fleet Admiral of the U. S., or some such hazzerai. Then you have the 9 five-star guys (4 navy, 4 army, 1 air farce... oops!), then Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan. I believe the only reason those latter 3 rank behind the 9 five-stars is because of the actual number of stars worn when they were in uniform. There was a pecking order amongst the 9, as well. This is all kind of arcane stuff, so one certainly wouldn't expect the great "American public" to understand, but then again I seem to remember some Hollywood starlet telling the press she thought "Pearl Harbor" (the movie!) was when the Chinese attacked California in the 1920s. Ah, yes! The American school system! Where would we all be without it!
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Apr 30, 2008 9:27:49 GMT -6
|
|
