|
Post by Scout on Jun 17, 2008 5:32:44 GMT -6
During this highly charged Presidential race I found this little tidbit that explains one thing...nothing ever changes on the American political scene.
The Chicago Times, Feb. 6, 1879.
"From the first Chicago Times has held the absurd theory that because General Custer was a Democrat there was a disposition on the part of the army officers generally to sacrifice him, and that therefore Major Reno sat down on that hill and let Sitting Bull and his brave finish the Democrat. All the uproar against Reno means only this, and all the pretentiously fair reviews of the testimony by the Times means only this. It is little and mean and iniquitous. No spirit is more contemptible than that which can see nothing generous in a rival, and that can account for the fall of a Democrat in battle but by a Republican conspiracy against him. But Major Reno's vindication is at hand."
American politics...ain't it grand!
S
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jun 17, 2008 7:01:57 GMT -6
At the sentencing phase of his trial for cannibalism (Albert Packer, I think), the judge said to the convicted, something like, "There were only seven Democrats in this entire county, and you ate five of them! You SOB! I sentence you to hang by the neck until dead," or so they say.
The tabloids of the day seem to have injected politics into everything.
In any case, the deed had been done in the mid 1870s and justice caught up with Packer in the mid 1880s. I also believe that Packer (if that's who it was) was a scout for General Custer at one time, according to some. Maybe the "... voracious Republican," (as the judge called him) was part of a conspiracy - leading the saintly Golden Warrior into a trap. A 'vast right-wing conspiracy' involving Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse (among others) who recent theorists believe were Conservative dupes. Then again, if you take into account EVERYONE who was said to have been a Custer scout - you have no one left to go looking for.
M OH! Did I mention that Packer the Cannibal was from Colorado? I hear they do that sort of thing out there.
|
|
|
Post by biggordie on Jun 17, 2008 8:58:07 GMT -6
Wasn't it Packer [if that's his true identity] who feasted on TWC's body, and held a private BBQ the night of the 25th? Or was that more liberal hogspittle.
I think Packer and Chapman were major players in the conspiracy, much as Carvill and Dean - or was that Torville and Dean? - were in the plot against Clinton [take your pick of which].
Of course, the big, bad, media - principally CNN - was in on it as well. I'm just not sure who led the plotters and what exactly they hoped to accomplish as an end [maybe the hacking of the computerized, unauditable voting machines]. Touch here, and guess what happens - you'll never be able to find out.
They [the Coloradoans, Colorado-ites, Coloradans, -ists -ians] eat most any old thing, new thing, whatever. When you see "sprouts" on the menu, you had best beware.....................
Gordie CCKC*
*Custer Conspiracy Knitting Club
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Jun 17, 2008 9:31:10 GMT -6
The Democrat-Republican theme was at the heart of the Earp-Clanton feud also, or so said the newspapers. Unbelievable. You don't see that in the movies, do you? You're right swordman, the papers did inject politics into events which had nothing political about them. By the way, was the Donner Party mostly Democrats? scout CCKC-vp
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 17, 2008 10:00:01 GMT -6
The University of Colorado has the Alfred Packer Grille, for students. The CU grads who do South Park did a musical about Alfred Packer while here which, if half as funny as the trailer they put together I saw in '91, was a huge success. I don't think Packer scouted for Custer. By memory, one of his scouts, California Joe, I think, was also rumored to have been a cannibal, but that was probably a common canard about Mountain Men types. Frankly, it doesn't hold a candle to some of the other stuff we KNOW they did. Eating recently dead humans ain't like killing them for the food. They die first, they lose.
The book about the Essex, which was the whaling ship Melville got the Pequod from, relates that after the ship went down in the south Pacific, they sailed in the whaleboat towards South America. Nobody had the social taste to die, so they drew straws. The captain's son drew the short straw and despite father's supposed threat to kill anyone who moved on him, he submitted to his fate. Not that I doubt it for a moment. Anyway, they killed and ate him. By memory, but I think correct. Packer probably didn't have to kill anyone, though.
The Dem-Repub stories are code for North and South. All Democrats were supposedly Copperhead Northerners or Treason minded Southerners, while the GOP was the party of Lincoln. Well, and railroad tycoons and Jay Gould and other lesser lights, but in general. In fact, about all the lawmen and, of course, most Army officers were Repubs, and most outlaws were Southerners, ergo Dems. Custer had proven himself in the war and I doubt anyone cared. I'd bet Benteen, as a Southerner, was a Dem as well most of his life and probably after the carpetbaggers hit, since he moved to Atlanta to end his days. And a lot of people on the fence or non political would roll with the times and fluff up the ruling party.
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jun 17, 2008 12:05:31 GMT -6
Newspapers back in the day were unabashedly pro one political party or another, and literally demonized the party of the opposite view.
Reading contemporary newspaper transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates are an experience. The transcripts of papers aligned with the Democrats bear little resemblance to those aligned with the Republicans. Lincoln historians generally compromise by taking Democrat accounts for what Douglas said, and take Lincoln's words from the Republican papers.
Who knows just what who actually said?
Starvation causes the body to automatically begin shutting down organs as a survival response. Prolonged starvation causes the brain to begin shutting down by stages. Higher functions such as reasoning go first. Ethical or moral considerations will eventually disappear completely. Extreme starvation reduces people down to a state equivalent to the cognitive level of a reptile.
Cannibalism becomes a perfectly normal option to humans reduced to that level by starvation, while it strikes those of us NOT in that state as repellent or horrifying.
I suppose that the two major political parties today view each other as little more than reptiles anyway - as they obviously did in the days of yesteryear."Nothing Sir, I say NOTHING, is beyond their nefarious purposes and means!"
M
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jun 19, 2008 14:47:11 GMT -6
The captain's son drew the short straw and despite father's supposed threat to kill anyone who moved on him, he submitted to his fate. It was his cousin. The captain offered to take his place, but he said no.
|
|
|
Post by pohanka on Jun 23, 2008 17:35:01 GMT -6
In addition to the above, a large, public "Hue and Cry" burned across the Nation demanding an explanation for the fall of the might 7th. by a mass of aboriginals. The fact that the Indians won was not acceptable. Surely unknown elements conspired to bring about this catastrophe. For example, Sitting Bull was rumored to have attended a military Academy where he learned military tactics which he utilized at the Little Big Horn. Fantastic!
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 24, 2008 6:45:54 GMT -6
And Reno said the village contained every squaw man in the region.
Also: The guns jammed . . . 9,000 warriors . . . An ambush . . . Custer was betrayed . . . It was Grant's fault . . . Reno was a coward (and he was drunk) . . . The agencies lied about the number of Indians missing . . . etc., etc., etc.
Could it be the answer was the 7th made mistakes, the Indians capitalized on them and beat the soldiers at their own game?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 24, 2008 9:06:42 GMT -6
Could it be the answer was the 7th made mistakes, the Indians capitalized on them and beat the soldiers at their own game? Could it be the answer was the Indians capitalized on their own sheer numbers and willingness to fight and and this time beat the soldiers at their own game?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 24, 2008 9:29:25 GMT -6
Could it be the answer was the 7th made mistakes, the Indians capitalized on them and beat the soldiers at their own game? Could it be the answer was the Indians capitalized on their own sheer numbers and willingness to fight and and this time beat the soldiers at their own game? Yes . . . both factors added up to an advantage for the Indians. Once the soldiers went on the defensive the tables turned in favor of the Indians. The mistakes or bad decisions by the military of separating the command before the exact location was determined and the poor lines of communication left them vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal and/or becoming impotent. The Indians more than likely had no choice to make a fight off it by being surprised by the 7th's attack. Whether they would have come out to meet Custer if they knew he was close or the village scattering is a good topic. However, since the Indians aggressively attacked Crook as he neared the village I have to assume the LBH warriors would have hit Custer before he got close to the village.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 24, 2008 10:27:42 GMT -6
Could it be the answer was the Indians capitalized on their own sheer numbers and willingness to fight and and this time beat the soldiers at their own game? Yes . . . both factors added up to an advantage for the Indians. Once the soldiers went on the defensive the tables turned in favor of the Indians. The mistakes or bad decisions by the military of separating the command before the exact location was determined and the poor lines of communication left them vulnerable to being destroyed piecemeal and/or becoming impotent. The Indians more than likely had no choice to make a fight off it by being surprised by the 7th's attack. Whether they would have come out to meet Custer if they knew he was close or the village scattering is a good topic. However, since the Indians aggressively attacked Crook as he neared the village I have to assume the LBH warriors would have hit Custer before he got close to the village. However, I'm not committed to the use of the word "mistakes" in characterizing the military movements. Choices of tactics and in hindsight with all the monday morning quarterbacking taken into account, can it be offered that maybe some other choices should have been made. Knowing that they may attack would have made Custer's original plan to wait behind the divide and attack in the morning a good choice as he had a good defensive position. But he didn't know that. Knowing that they may also run and if they run to south avoiding both Custer and Terry makes Custer out to be a real buffoon. That leaves attacking as the best option along with sending Benteen to the south to keep anyone from moving south as well as scouting the area for villages to the south, all of which supports a slow movement by Custer and Reno from the batallion halt to give Benteen time for his scouts to check things out to the south. Custer and Reno were following a lodge pole trail, but I suspect that if Benteen found a vill south of ford A, then plans would have changed but as it was they didn't really see the size of the vill until they were about on it.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 24, 2008 10:41:48 GMT -6
True, Custer was not fully aware of what was going on.
That is why once large signs of a village was noted Custer should have sent out smaller scouting parties who may have been better able to conceal themselves with less dust, noise, etc. They may have been able to locate the village, gather intel on size, disposition, send back runners with messages.
Custer, by proceeding with the entire command once signs of a large village was noted, in my mind was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Jun 24, 2008 12:21:52 GMT -6
True, Custer was not fully aware of what was going on. That is why once large signs of a village was noted Custer should have sent out smaller scouting parties who may have been better able to conceal themselves with less dust, noise, etc. They may have been able to locate the village, gather intel on size, disposition, send back runners with messages. Custer, by proceeding with the entire command once signs of a large village was noted, in my mind was a mistake. I'm not even sure what the subject of this thread and if we are following it but as in past practice, who cares. I agree best scenario would have been to sent out scouts, etc. If you want to consider mistakes, was it a mistake to have approached the divide where they did instead of moving farther south and approaching the divide? Then we have a whole new battle scenario. Would that have been a Custer mistake or a Terry mistake? My whole point here is that when you look at the decision making process, you never know that the result is a mistake or not until you determine what the outcome was. At the time of making the decision you don't really know what the outcome is yet (although you speculate) so at the second of making a decision, it can't be called a mistake. When you make a decision, you consider the alternatives and then decide what is best. Winning or losing the battle was not a part of the decision making process at the divide. It was whether they could lay low and wait to attack till the next morning or once they believed they were discovered then do they continue to lay low and wait till the next day and let the NAs escape or decide to go ahead and attack. Given the choices Custer had at the time, he made the only choice he could. In hindsight, a the wrong choice. Still not a mistake since he losing the battle and getting massacreed was not an option on the table being considered at the time. However if the 7th had a history of being whipped by any force of NAs and Custer knew that at the time of his decision, then his decision comes closer to being a mistake. I think darkcloud has previously defined what a mistake is in a post somewhere but I'm not knowledgabe enough to understand what he said/says. They cut my mother-in-law's wheat the other day. I told her not to sell but hold out for a higher price. The normal trend is for a crop price to drop during harvest cause of all the farmers who have to sell to pay their bills and then it usually, but not always (depending upon supply and demand), goes back up. Yesterday the price dropped. You could ask, did I make a bad choice or a mistake? If the price goes up, then I made a good choice and am a hero and/or made a non-mistake. I/we make decisions like this everyday but at the time of making the decision, I can't say it was a mistake or even a good or bad choice. I guess my whole point here is, for anyone who cares and IMHO, that the word "mistake" is probably not appropriate terminology to be used in evaluating a decision. But I know others believe otherwise. You have to look at the basic decision making process. Kinda like sitting at at stop sign and trying to decide when to pull out. You evaluate the speed, timing, and movement of all the traffic along with your estimated time your own vehicle moves, and then decide to pull out or wait. If you pull out and no accident then you made a good choice/decision. If there is an accident then you made a bad choice/decision. Nothing personal here but use of the word "mistake" then goes with someone playing the "blame" game. They made a mistake we we can blame them. I'm not sure we can place blame on someone for making tactical decisions in accordance with their knowledge, training, and experience.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 24, 2008 13:06:34 GMT -6
Benteen to Terry when Terry showed up at Reno Hill
"Mistakes were made."
|
|