|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2008 12:36:40 GMT -6
Sorry, but Loofa Bill recalls Les Nesman And The News two decades later to me. Angry he never got the Silver Sow.
An unintended compliment, scout. Corey and I both worked with Stone County Agency in Denver, although I cannot recall if during the same period. I was a subagent, he an act. His act was far more clever than most realized. Apparently more clever than you, anyway, realize, or you'd have chosen someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 11, 2008 14:15:49 GMT -6
I know all about him personally...he's a goofball...I picked the right person.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 11, 2008 19:53:27 GMT -6
Others think far more highly of him. And they're not French, either. He was the toast of New York for a while, which is stiff competition.
If you saw him in the sixties or seventies, I bet you'd think otherwise. He's about 95 if a day, now, and can't have been at the top of his routine for years.
Anyway, I consider it a complement, however maliciously and erroneously applied.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 12, 2008 11:10:15 GMT -6
I have read the book all the way through. We have already tried to discuss it, but dc won't allow that. And he seems to be implying that the people who say they have read it are lying, since they don't agree with his opinions.
Just because the insults are couched in erudite language doesn't make them any more acceptable than somebody else just screaming "Liar!" at everyone.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 12, 2008 12:22:28 GMT -6
<erudite language>
Very good . . . knowledge of books can be great . . . but there's nothing like the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 12, 2008 12:25:53 GMT -6
Nonsense, Melanie, nobody has tried to discuss it EXCEPT me. Others say what a great read it is, and that's it, giving no indication they've read it at all. If I'm wrong, you'll have no trouble providing an example now that the board is back up, if not fully back to normal. And again, I've provided several opportunities for discussion, page numbers and all.
If you don't like mine, try the inevitable yearly discussion of Tom Custer's Mutilations, above, where Donovan has described detail without notation or, it seems by source known to anyone else yet. And he says it as fact, not as Connell would, presented as said by someone and it may be true. Start there.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 20, 2008 16:16:05 GMT -6
Really? I'm quite sure few if any have read the whole book. I listed my grievances elsewhere. Address them. Punk. Go ahead. Address them........
DC you are hilarious. You go from crusty old curmudgeon to Dirty Harry in the space of a single post. You do make me laugh. Mind you, I was rather disappointed that you didn't say 'make my day' but then you are nothing if not capricious. To address all your grievances would be tedious in the extreme for all the other posters but I will attend to some. Firstly though, the answer to your query concerning Kellogg's notes is contained in his entry in 'Men with Custer'. So you are able to categorize Jim Donovan's book because you 'knew' what his idiocies and psychoses were without reading the book? What appalling arrogance. That your experience in the subject would enable you to have a better general overview of such books than some of us I would happily accept, but no one, not even you, has any idea what goes on in another person's mind. Your disparaging remarks are gratuitously insulting to Jim who in no way merits such vituperation. Your sermon on how much alcohol was consumed by people like Churchill does not detract from the right of any author to utilize and interpret information he finds during his research, in accordance with how relevant HE thinks that information is to his writing. Jim Donovan cites various sources that mention Reno's intake of spirits during the actions in the valley and on the hill. Now whether the comments from those sources were made at the time or years later is irrelevant, because Jim has chosen to believe, that in combination, they indicate that Reno, the senior officer, was over reliant on the whiskey bottle in the face of the enemy. That is his right as an author and the fact that you do not agree with him does not make you right or Jim wrong. In any case, the word 'drunk' needs to be considered objectively. Falling down, totally smashed or just not in full possession of one's faculties can both be described as drunk. In my opinion the former does not apply to Reno on 25th June 1876, but the latter is entirely feasible. Whatever the cause, it cannot be denied that Reno performed poorly. If nothing else, the flight from the timber to the hill points to a man not in control of either himself or is men, a commander who acted in a totally non-professional way. A frightened man probably, who perhaps needed a supply of some stimulant just to keep going. You also say that he was a belligerent drunk and that is true, but only when confronting another individual, usually a subordinate officer, who he felt able to browbeat by virtue of his own senior rank. At the LBH he was faced by a horde of Plains Indian warriors out for blood, bluster was not an option, he was scared stiff and maybe hoped that whiskey would give him sufficient backbone to appear in control. BTW, it is unfair to label French as a heavy drinker at the time of the LBH. Weir yes, but French, no. There is no evidence to show that French was drinking heavily prior to the LBH, indeed on 13th November 1870, Col.Gillem of the 11th Infantry, who wanted French assigned to his regiment, wrote to the Adjutant-General "Capt. French is young, energetic, temperate, and has a great taste for the military profession." That French became a heavy drinker post-LBH is not denied. As to your convoluted argument about Reno's response to Porter being regarded as a non-sequitor (sic), you appear to be reneging on your usual mantra 'start with the testimony'. Porter's recollection of his exchange with Reno was made during the doctor's testimony at the RCOI, so according to your strict time constraints, it is close enough to the event to be accepted as truthful. That makes Reno's remark not only defensive but indicative of a man who was desperate for others to believe that the flight from the timber had been a carefully planned military maneuver. Your assertion that 'he saved his command' is ludicrous. He lost at least one-third of it, made no attempt to organize rear guard actions or covering fire during the retreat and was mainly concerned with saving himself. It was the combination of Benteen's arrival and the exodus of the Indians to confront Custer that saved, temporarily, what was left of Reno's command. So what are we to make of your ardent defense of Reno? No doubt you consider it to be a pragmatic view and an attempt to be objective about Reno's performance, yet if anyone else made a similar defense of Custer you would immediately label them a Custerphile. Do we assume then that you are a Renophile? Of course not, because unlike you, the rest of us are not into putting labels on people to make it easier to belittle them. You must have read a different version of the book to me because in my copy, on page 361, Donovan says "Also present was the Reverend Dr. Arthur Edwards, who had accompanied Reno as chaplain of his command during the Civil War." There is no mention of the Reverend as 'a good friend' as you claim. Tsk, tsk, DC, sloppy of you. You have also been sloppy in our reading of the Half-Yellow Face quote. Jim Donovan's text says "Because you and I are going home today, and by a trail that is strange to both of us." That is a direct copy of the original quote in 'Plenty Coups' by Frank B. Linderman (page 175). What you cite as the correct wording "...a road we do not know" is from page 152 of 'Killing Custer' by James Welch, who attributes it to HYF but cites it without reference to a source. Those words were also used as the title of the Frederick J. Chiaventone novel and used by him on page 182 as being said by Bloody Knife, who according to Billy Jackson never said anything but signed to the sun as the command halted at the headwaters of Reno Creek "I shall not see you go down behind the hills tonight", (Innis, 'Bloody Knife' pages 133/4). Now I do appreciate that your argument is that none of these quotes have any merit and should not be used at all, but whilst you are entitled to that view, an author is entitled to use such material if HE thinks it is sufficiently valid. After all, if HYF (Crow) told Plenty Coups (Crow) what he had said to Custer, then PC told Linderman who understood some of the Crow language and was proficient at the sign language, we are not making a quantum leap of faith to accept that the quote is reasonably accurate. Not good enough for you of course. Donovan's quote on page 201 about Kellogg writing another dispatch on June 24th may be correct, but if so, that dispatch was lost with everything else he had with him at the LBH. You are quite right that the words he cites come from Kellogg's dispatch of June 21st as "We leave the Rosebud tomorrow" makes clear. As this was extracted from Sandy Barnard's 'I Go with Custer' it could be misquoted there, but does not absolve Jim from not checking it out. Nevertheless it is a minor oversight and even the sainted Connell did not get everything right. Never mind memorable lines, on page 229 of SOTMS he states "Sherman wired Terry: "Advise Custer to be prudent, not to take along any newspapermen...". Custer, however, ignored these disagreeable instructions and invited Clement Lounsberry, publisher of the Tribune." (Kellogg of course took his place). Yet on page 30 of his book 'Custer and the Great Controversy' Robert Utley states "Despite this injunction [Sherman's], Clement A. Lounsberry....managed to win General Terry's permission to report the campaign." This is from Lounsberry's own confirmation in 'Early History of North Dakota' published in 1919. Now don't tell me, both Utley and Lounsberry are Custerphiles who lied through their teeth to defend GAC, because clearly Connell cannot possibly be wrong. The reference that Jim makes on page 413 in Note 85 to Sklenar's book 'To Hell with Honor' does pay tribute to that book being 'full of fresh insights and conclusions etc.,' but makes no claim to agree with Sklenar's theory which you yourself call 'bizarre'. Donovan has not 'ignored' Sklenar's point but merely exercised his right to make his own choice which does not happen to agree with that of the other author, not exactly a hanging offence. To admire someone's work is not the same thing as slavishly adhering to their every idea. Although I do not like the way they are presented, I admire some of your insights. That does not constrain me to worship the Gospel According to DC as if what you say comes down from Mount Sinai carved in tablets of stone and ready for inclusion in the New Testament. The bottom line as I see it, is that you are not simply being critical of Jim Donovan and his book, but are determined, for reasons only known to you, to pillory both the author and his work. That over the top hysteria is probably the best publicity Jim could have asked for as it will only intrigue people to buy the book to see what all the fuss is about. 'A Terrible Glory' may not be the greatest book ever written about the LBH and yes, like many other such books, it does contain some errors, but it is written in an easy narrative style and will certainly attract neophytes to the subject. If they are really interested, they will then do their own research as we all claim to do. So, Sir DC of Last Word Castle, I leave the floor to you, but as I am intrigued by your purported ESP abilities, perhaps you will characterize me from the type of poetry my dear old daddy read to me as he tucked me up in my strait jacket at night. Sample: Each pet LBH theory, Is savaged by dear old DC, So don't be dismayed If rain spoils your parade, That's what Darkclouds do, don't you see? Hunk the Punk
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 20, 2008 20:38:49 GMT -6
“To address all your grievances would be tedious in the extreme for all the other posters but I will attend to some. Firstly though, the answer to your query concerning Kellogg's notes is contained in his entry in 'Men with Custer'.” Your compassion for the forum is, you know, touching. I appreciate the audience pressure you feel requiring back channel communications and preparation. But go ahead, fully respond. They don’t have to read it. Delay between questions and answers proves my point, anyway. Most, if not all, of the other posters didn’t actually read the book, I did, so I’m fine with reviewing it and raising questions.
I’m also fine with reviewing it without reading it as well, and my suppositions were born out. It’s not just Donovan’s book for that to be true, though. The condemnations are mine of long standing and apply to virtually every Custer book these days. There’s nothing new in the way of evidence, you can be really close in your review just knowing about the author, and Custer authors are nothing if not utterly predictable. So, I have no problem with doing this. Of course, I front load that announcement as I do my never-a-soldier status, which annoys people, probably since some here try to pass themselves off as what they are not. I claim only third grade graduation, so you can’t hold me to historian status. I’m just a concerned reader, devoted member of the public. I provided Connell’s reference to the last dated Kellogg note, cited it as in conflict with Donovan’s placement of Kellogg and Kellogg’s writing it the evening of the 24th. You leave the subject and return to it at the end of the post, where you then seem to agree with me without doing so. I asked who was right, and apparently Connell was.
But, you miss the actual importance. “You are quite right that the words he cites come from Kellogg's dispatch of June 21st as "We leave the Rosebud tomorrow" makes clear.” Okay. “As this was extracted from Sandy Barnard's 'I Go with Custer' it could be misquoted there, but does not absolve Jim from not checking it out.” Well, the admission of a minor point of near trivia doesn’t relieve him of stating as fact Kellogg wrote certain lines at a time and place not possible, given such a note DID make it back to the newspaper, and it left the 21st. Important Point One: Kellogg must be lying because they didn’t leave the Rosebud that day; they weren’t even really on it when he wrote it but soon entered it, and of course he’d be with Custer on the 24th. It seems to be a reference in anticipation, or even a reference to another event. It’s a revealing comment on how ‘news’ was written and what got printed.
Important Point Two: Donovan is playing much the same game because he needed that dramatic scene and inserted a falsehood.
Together with Donovan’s apparent admission in another thread about TWC’s mutilations (a subject, I assure you, which can rank no lower in importance to me), what is this saying about Donovan’s academic rigor? In aggregate, these are not minor oversights, but reveal a willingness to sub drama for fact, and an unwillingness to offer alternative scenarios for which as much or more evidence exists.
(You can go through Tuchman’s far more intricate works and find no such errors, and nobody has despite effort, and there was much opportunity for it. That’s why of all the historians in this nation of the last half century, she excelled and was easily the best writer. I mention in passing.)
Connell is a novelist, made no claim to be a historian, just a tale teller, and cannot be held to the same standards. Nor can I. I only finished third grade. Donovan wants historian status, does he not?
Sherman did wire that to Terry. Custer did invite Lounsberry, I recall. Kellogg did take his place. Newspapermen arrived in droves to cover the campaign with others. Custer, as I read it, was not exempted from Sherman’s ‘order.’ When did Terry get permission for newspapermen to accompany Custer? There’s nothing mutually exclusive, so far.
Donovan cites sources about Reno’s drinking, yes, but are they worthwhile and based on first hand knowledge? Fred on this forum found Donovan quoted someone NOT THERE, but who wrote about it later. And, contrary to your view, it’s terribly important whether these were opinions from first hand observers or those just quoting a vastly smaller pool, not necessarily true, as many did in later years.
It’s the right of a novelist to merely choose someone to believe, but Connell, an actual novelist, is more historically fair in telling the story. He quotes the charges and those who doubt and lets the reader make up his own mind. Donovan states supposition as fact, with neither source nor possibility of source as fact. You defend this. He cheerfully enters Reno’s mind and ‘must haves’ accumulate.
“If nothing else, the flight from the timber to the hill points to a man not in control of either himself or is men, a commander who acted in a totally non-professional way.” Upon what are you basing that? Since I’m not a soldier, I don’t think it appropriate for those of us not horse cavalry combat vets to pass judgment upon those who were, at least concerning bravery or competence under such circumstance.
Even so, he led his men, who obeyed, in a charge out of there, and given he didn’t know what was on the other bank it cannot be contended he was solely concerned for himself, because he’d have someone else lead it if he were.
People say he ‘shoulda’ set up a more organized defense. I’ve asked people for years now that, if they contend this, they should show where and when and how this would be accomplished with fewer casualties, which must be the definition of ‘better,’ right? Put down on paper and time it out with casualty estimates. Do they stay with casualties that cannot ride or leave them lay? Dismount? Or fire from horses? How many horses lost? The whole thing, all of it. You are given maps and the advantage of information Reno never had. How’d this work for Custer, this series of sequential firing lines in one direction?
It cannot be contended Reno was any more in need of a stimulant than those who admitted being juiced and provide much of the accusations about this. And, although I don’t recall where, I’m very much under the impression French drank a lot well before the LBH. It would be surprising if he did not; they all did, for the most part. Gillen’s description is boilerplate. But, I’ll look into that.
No, you’re trying to imply confusion where none plausibly exists. What Porter claimed he said was highly offensive, for the reasons I gave, and rather heroically dangerous. Running up to Reno and saying “the men ARE pretty demoralized…” maybe, but he puts it in the past tense. I clearly said this would be like running up to an officer who’d just lost a battle and saying “that was pretty stupid, don’t ya think?” Guilty as suggested or not, nobody would blame the officer for knocking the fool down. I have difficulty with it, because it would be such stupid thing to say aloud at that moment to anyone.
At least the people I belittle are around to defend themselves, or in this case, employ others for it. By the way.
“You must have read a different version of the book to me because in my copy, on page 361, Donovan says "Also present was the Reverend Dr. Arthur Edwards, who had accompanied Reno as chaplain of his command during the Civil War." There is no mention of the Reverend as 'a good friend' as you claim. Tsk, tsk, DC, sloppy of you.” Not at all. Not only did I read the book, but the notes as well, and it references page 338-40 of the Custer myth as source, where Rear Reverend Edwards is described as a “faithful friend.” It’s all nonsense of course, because no man of the cloth is morally allowed to violate confidences like that, and was obviously no friend, but trying to gain status in the Prohibition Circles after Reno died.
I haven’t been sloppy at all about the Half-Yellow Face quote. I pointed out that this wasn’t a written piece subject to minor translation variations. It doesn’t matter which is ‘correct’, they mean the same thing, but I was curious why he chose that over the other version. Having said that, I cannot find it at all in Gray or Stewart but did in Connell unsourced, although he says cautious historians doubt it happened at all since HYF/BB didn’t speak English nor Custer Crow. Connell wrote in 1984, before all the others you mentioned that have my assumed translation. I’m sure I read it long before Connell, but I cannot prove it now, so I’ll spend time trying to find it under the horror of maybe being wrong. I’m dreading that I got it from Douglas Jones. We’ll see. “Now I do appreciate that your argument is that none of these quotes have any merit and should not be used at all, but whilst you are entitled to that view, an author is entitled to use such material if HE thinks it is sufficiently valid.” Of course, although I’d further say he has an obligation to list ambiguities as such or present alternative theories just as plausible. I’m under the impression we’re to view Donovan as historian, not a mere author.
I did say from the beginning that the issue wasn’t accuracy of meaning of that phrase – they mean the same thing – but that you cannot rewrite a translation and put it quotes unless the original is still available for checking. In this case, I may prove to have had the wrong story if there was no basis for the wording I assumed the correct one. I read the Plenty Coup book years ago, and apparently never noticed the difference.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 21, 2008 8:34:47 GMT -6
DC,
B S
H
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 22, 2008 8:18:52 GMT -6
Best Scenario, I agree. Thanks.
You'd enjoy it more if you actually read it, though. Perhaps next time you can address the issues in less than weeks.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Jun 23, 2008 16:48:20 GMT -6
Best Scenario, I agree. Thanks. You'd enjoy it more if you actually read it, though. Perhaps next time you can address the issues in less than weeks.
Nope, got more important things to do.
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 28, 2008 10:44:56 GMT -6
After reading the elaborate and excellently written statements regarding Donovan's book (both pro and con) I will not add additional catalysis to the smoldering fire.
However, I must make comment regarding Dark Clouds statement in which he admits his negativity towards written Custer books which applies to "virtually every Custer book these days." I find that statement startling at best and, somewhat incomprehensible. Let me explain why.
During the immediate aftermath of this battle the truth of what actually occurred was severely augmented with false conclusions and, a myriad of other factors that has resulted in confusion that persists to this day.
Beginning in 1984, due to a large fire on the battlefield, science through archeology entered the foray. As a result we have been able to confirm some truths and vanquish some un-truths resulting in establishing a substantially reasonable summation of what may have occurred.
Having said this, why the animosity against every Custer book today. Are you inferring that books written in the past were better? Or, are you implying that all Custer books are unworthy?
Personally, I am eternally grateful for the magnificent efforts of the vast majority of the authors of this genre (there are a few exceptions) for their hard work and dedication. Thanks to their efforts, I have received so much information that, otherwise, would not have been available.
Lastly, where you excluding the works of Gray, Fox, and Hardoff from your list of unworthiness?
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 28, 2008 20:39:57 GMT -6
I'll let DC speak for himself if he cares to (he's explained his viewpoint over many months on these boards) but I'd like to ask you something, pohanka. When was the last time you read something about the battle that made you say "Wow!" or changed your mind about a major incident of the battle? This is not a trick question. I am interested in your answer and those of others.
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 29, 2008 9:00:08 GMT -6
Excellent question Diane and I'll answer your question as best as I can. For many years every book I read considering this battle appeared to fall into two categories,pro-Custer and anti-Custer. My life long experiences have shown me that the truth often lies in a relative area between the two extreme poles.
The concensus appeared to be either Custer was a genius or an idiot, I felt he was neither. In addition, it seemed to me that Indian testimony too often referred to the troopers becoming or acting "drunk". What did they mean by this? Exactly what were they trying to convey when they referred to the battle as a "buffalo hunt?
Another thorn in my thought process was how could the warriors exterminate Custer's command so thoroughly(regardless of their numbers) and, humiliate the Reno contingency to such a degree that several of them, subsequently, lied at the Reno Inquiry.
I recalled how in 1867 thirty soldiers and two citizens held off at least 500 hundred warriors for six hours loosing only four men in the Wagon Box Fight. Every member of the military hierarchy was convinced that each "prong" was capable of defeating the Indians.
Then I discovered archeology, History and Custer's Last Battle which went into great depth discussing mental debilitation caused by combat conditions particularity when the enemy is in close proximity and armed with superior firepower (repeating rifles). I read of Cartridge case distributions made possible by their unique signature data that enabled Fox to "map" soldier and warrior movement across the battle field.
It was then that I experienced a "WOW' as I realized that "drunk" and "Buffalo hunt" were Indian metaphors describing a panic driven group of soldiers running for dear life after company "L" collapsed on Calhoun Hill. I went "WOW" when I realized that Indian testimony was being reasonably substantiated. I also, now, possessed a rationale for the obvious deception by members of the 7th. at the Reno Inquiry.
I also marveled at Donovan's book which seemed,to me anyway, very even keeled in its thought process towards the personality of Custer. A man who was certainly full of himself but, he certainly was not a raving lunatic willing to sacrifice his family and comrades to enhance his personal glory.
When we read Charles Kuhlman's well written "Legend into History" which meticulously but incorrectly describes the flow of battle from south to north we realize how far we have come. I am not suggesting that my cogitative insights are noteworthy. What may be a revelation to me may be simply an afterthought to another. I was honestly asking Dark Cloud for further clarification for his all encompassing declaration about the Custer battle books "these days." Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 29, 2008 9:45:34 GMT -6
Merkel, you're such a girl.
And as my British blood responds like a Pavlovian dog when I am given such obvious Social Leads as your post contained, I will not take opportunity to restate my various Theories of Life, since you kindly pointed out their numerous past lives here. Brilliant as they are. I will accept the further burden - my goodness provides so many - of depriving the masses. And cast no stones. For I am Bonehead.
The phrase that gives you the vapors was part of a larger paragraph that started:
I’m also fine with reviewing it without reading it as well, and my suppositions were born out. It’s not just Donovan’s book for that to be true, though. The condemnations are mine of long standing and apply to virtually every Custer book these days.
First, let's examine the name, parentage, meaning, and presence of the word "virtual." Moving on.....
The 'condemnations' are those related to the magic ability to review Custer books without reading them, a thread of Genius which you apparently share with me when you suggest to Wiggs/realbird/Pohanka that he name a work about the battle that startled him in its innovation or new facts, which you delicately call the "wow" factor. Sorry, but I detect a note of long suffering in that similar to my own. Admit it, woman, you know its true. And to us - we brilliant folk - its a discomfort. To the Muggles/Furries/Ambulatory Re-enactors and Custerphiles, it's a joy. Why, one asks, is that true? Well.
Because they want to see the same story, the same facts, quoted and restated over and over again, continually have the same conversations with the same results only with continually different people so they can slide from goober into the role of expert, something Custerland offers. Why is that so?
So they can convince themselves that the numerous restatements are as different eyewitness accounts that add up to The Truth. Which, by promise, I won't go into. But they all are based upon very few, very dubious, and hardly objective sources. A thousand diary entries by old men that could only have been based upon very few if any first person accounts remain a Thousand Points of Light, or at least a thousand end notes that in aggregate signify nearly nothing. Quantity by repetition equals quality of basis to them.
In marginal seriousness, while it's true that "... the truth of what actually occurred was severely augmented with false conclusions and, a myriad of other factors that has resulted in confusion that persists to this day...." I have to ask: what other battle is hugely different? We actually know quite a bit about the Custer battle, absent the exact formation, who killed who precisely when, last words. There are Civil War battles where arguments raged for years over what orders - heard by many - were given when to who and what actually happened.
I would disagree somewhat with, due to archaeology, "...we have been able to confirm some truths and vanquish some un-truths resulting in establishing a substantially reasonable summation of what may have occurred." We already had a substantially valid summation of what might have occured. Archaeology proved nothing, can prove nothing, but it can offer evidence that is not in conflict with certain theories.
I find archaeoloy, and the work on the field, fascinating, but in their first book, Scott and Fox made the case was made they hoped battlefield archaeology would become a bigger factor and a bigger biz based on their work. And while they were very careful in word use, their readers did a lot of shilling for them. I'll just say that their findings are neither in conflict with various Ford Z/Great Northern Journey theories nor my own involving the use of uniforms, horses, weapons of the dead by the Cheyenne while riding in formation in the same portion of the field. They give the patina of 'science' and detail to many theories.
Custer books, absent great story telling ability like Connell, appeal to an increasingly very few and have to include certain elements to sell at all. Insertion of 'mysteries' and the boilerplate accusations of betrayals or incompetence is one method, and I contend it does history a disservice, via Michno or The History Channel. I point again to Connell's habit of telling the different stories and noting the conflicts and saying 'who knows?', something supposed 'serious' historians often neglect, stating as fact that which can neither be known or, in any case, is currently not known.
And, I say again, what Vietnam combat unit subject to the same level of prolonged inquiry wouldn't cough up many of the same issues as here? With charges of cowardice - unproveable - hanging over men. People - good people - have bad days inflicted by events in aggregate, and would it be fair for the United States to hold its soldiers in that war in the same disdain with which so many hold Reno today?
Read about, say, the Navy before the Battle of Savo Island, where we got blown out of the water by rank incompetence. The admirals had violent arguments, and when John McCain's grandfather left the carrier where the meeting was held, he had slop deliberately dumped on him.
Searching for a scapegoat after, they decided the captain of the Chicago was a coward and drove him to suicide.
McCain, like Kelly Turner, probably screwed up by common agreement in early battles, but was allowed to return and thank the Lord God they were so allowed. Just like MacArthur. But others, who'd done far less badly, are excoriated to this day. Kimmell, Short, Fletcher, and the captain of the Indianapolis, also a suicide, for being the only person to lose a ship of the United States in war......
The LBH contains all this in greatly reduced form, with participants safely dead, and people feel free to play with remembrance of soldiers' lives. I'd consider it the proud duty of history to tell stories as correctly as possible, include various interpretations, and be far less dedicated to apportioning comic book level hero and villain status.
You know I'm right, Ms. Merkel.
For I am Bonehead.
|
|