|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 18, 2010 1:15:38 GMT -6
1. This from WikiPedia about the Battle of Pryor Creek.
"The battle began near Sheridan, Wyoming. The Crow heard a rumor that the Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho were going to attack a Crow village on the Tongue River. The Crow fled northwest, but the attackers caught up with them at Arrow Creek. Arrow Creek was difficult to cross – a very defensible position. It was one of the largest battles the Crow ever fought, as they had to fight for their nation's existence."
They're trying to get a national designation for the site today. "One of the......" This sound like a skirmish?
I cannot pick up an era appropriate book without there being references to spur of the moment raids on each other's horse herds. The Shoshone necklace of Cheyenne infant hands speaks to the related issue. Sitting Bull's own illustrated history references lots of these skirmishes and none over land.
2. Not aware women played major roles in their councils of war, nor would they easily object to a decision without blowback.
3. I'm sorry, which one did you say was willing to accept a diminished status for general benefit?
4. Not changing the subject whatever. I forget: how many did SB take to Canada? How many came back? I've read his initial camp was about 5k up there, but he returned with about 200. He'd been abandoned by his people who didn't trust his judgement for their benefit any more. Many died.
5. If history wasn't written by the conquerors, there'd be none, since literacy represents the superior culture. But that's another idiotic cliche. 'History is written by the winners' isn't true when both sides can write, is it? Did the South publish one or two histories after our CW? Like a gabillion? And the truth is, many times the histories gel more than conflict. You don't think publishers wouldn't line up to publish an Indian history, even in 1876, if written by Sitting Bull 'as told to' a hack? Even as it is, there are a LOT of Indian accounts of the LBH battle. Are there no French histories of Napoleon? No German books about the World Wars?
And in the books about Indians, you've never detected the intent of the author to not only bend over backwards to be fair, but forward at need as well? My God, Mein Kampf is still printed by the winners' publishing houses.
But there would be no published work for people who could not read by the hands of those who could not write interviewing those who didn't speak the same language except for the awful, awful winners' devotion to Christian charity and truth, for good and ill. When it was all in the hands of oral historians, the tales accuracy can be assumed to be no better or worse than those of the same sort elsewhere around the world. To treat them as actual accounts means the same must be done to Beowulf.
Come on. Indians are people like everyone else, and not devoid of the same failures and plusses as anyone else.
5. Read some of the supposed speeches of Tecumseh and explain how the verbal tenses he used somehow are not found in the language he spoke. No doubt a great orator - no argument and much evidence - but that he had at his finger tips the history of tribes so far away and by the same names as the whites called them is a little too spot on. Plus, he has the cadence of Pitt the Elder before the Commons.
|
|
|
Post by clw on Dec 18, 2010 5:43:53 GMT -6
Fred~
Your reasoning confirms my own guess of Smith being the one wounded.
Most likely north and east of Battle Ridge and LSH. The suicide boys, a mix of Lakota and Cheyenne, were probably in that vicinity as well. 'Superintendent Hill' is mentioned as the point where many if them were killed.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 18, 2010 7:54:28 GMT -6
Your reasoning confirms my own guess of Smith being the one wounded.... Most likely north and east of Battle Ridge and LSH. The suicide boys, a mix of Lakota and Cheyenne, were probably in that vicinity as well. 'Superintendent Hill' is mentioned as the point where many if them were killed. CLW, I cannot see it any other way, and try as I might, I cannot eliminate the wounding of someone at the ford. To me, from a military viewpoint, Smith is the only one who makes sense because his company would have acted as a screening element while GAC stood back, off the ford and on the higher ground, to assess the situation. That is just good tactics. Of course, I rail against all these others who ignore various testimonies, then I go and do the same damn thing in this situation. So, like my Boston Custer-telling-his-brother-about-Reno setback, I am resigned to eating some crow here, as well. At least I haven't given in to the GAC shooting, however. That theory makes no sense to me. I am rather frustrated, however, about the Wolf Tooth/Big Foot business, because the only thing I have been able to dig up has been written by historians and they simply gloss over everything. I came up with the names of more than 200 Indians who rode with Crazy Horse, but not a single one with those two guys. I have also guessed that they were closer than north and east of LSH, simply because of the "ferocity" of the volley firing from Luce. I tend to think that was aimed at more than a couple dozen loosely knit Indians trailing Custer, but then, who knows. Maybe the volleys were laughers, as well, and guys were just taking their pre-mortuary target practice. I cannot buy into the dribble in Bray-- espoused so vehemently by "ConZ"-- about Crazy Horse and all these guys crossing the river and scaling the bluffs in pursuit of Reno. Someone would have remarked about it as I just do not see Crazy Horse hiding behind Weir Peaks, out of sight of a beaten command. I also reject Godfrey's later contention that the volleys were fired as distress signals. I think the man was grasping for straws at that point. The suicide "boys" is another issue I wrestle with.... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 18, 2010 11:27:29 GMT -6
Purpose. Discuss LT Smith and wounded officer theory.
MTC. Lt Smith wounded at MTC raises a few issues. If he or anyone were wounded at the MTC skirmish, the most likely course of action would be to leave the wounded and medical team with Keough. Keough's swale position is not a bad spot for an aid station.
Light Wound. An alternate COA is that Smith was only lightly wounded. But if he were capable of the Ford D reconnaissance, why did he not accompany E Company on their charge?
Two Ford. I guess you can assume that he was wounded again on the Ford D charge.
This COA is fun. Now we have a hypothesis that has a buckskin clad officer wounded at both MTC and Ford D, and it is the same officer. Since I believe simple explanations are far more probable than complex ones, I see this as a very low probability event.
No officer wounded at MTC. It would be expected that the E Co commander would dismount to use optics to examine the ford and beyond. If he fell or even took a knee, hostiles could have assumed it was due to their fire.
I go back to the issue that wounded E Company soldiers are more likely to be left in the Keough sector than dragged along on the Ford D scout.
Smith evidence. Does anyone know of eyewitness testimonies on the number and nature of Smith's wounds? This would help.
I can't believe Terry put saving the lives of the wounded over conducting autopsies and collecting forensic evidence. The guy was a former lawyer, who knew he had a conscience?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 18, 2010 12:52:23 GMT -6
If you imagine the entire five companies heading down MTC, the front blunted under fire of some sort, a wounded officer needing attention, then Keogh and Calhoun aren't at their later positions for them to host a field hospital. Being stuck in a crevasse not appealing, Keogh leads his guys out or back and out and travels parallel to the front companies' journey to LSH, in whatever form it took. E could have been the divided company, half with each.
Nobody in clear charge, Keogh never aware of what the point of heading north is. Then, all under fire from various sides until surrounded and all academic.
Again, the Indians dressed as soldiers later in the battle would/could explain the entire issue of soldiers in camp at Ford whatever further north. They did fool Weir, Terry's guys, and the Cheyenne women in the two days of area dominance. Some got the word, some did not and the story got passed down. We KNOW that happened, and it has to be excluded by evidence before entire new scenarios are drawn up.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Dec 19, 2010 5:30:41 GMT -6
Fred, I too have problems fitting the Wolf Tooth Big foot bunch into the scenario. One suspects that the fifty or so warriors that accompanied these two weren't that well armed and were perhaps, relatively untried as warriors. In which case why all that firing up on Luce and maybe Nye Cartwright rides? The sub text in Wolf tooth's own account of this action seems to imply that the venture comprised a deal more noise and bluster than anything else, all of which leaves one with an impression of them riding around yelling at the troopers from a safe distance, and possibly letting off the odd shot. Colorful and potentially a little dangerous if one let it get out of hand, but Custer and the others were familiar with this sort of thing and I can't really see them regarding it as any kind of threat.
If true then this poses a couple of questions. One, are those accounts of all that firing residue on those two locations to be believed? In other words have the accounts somehow become a version of Chinese whispers so that with the passage of time the actual numbers of finds have been hyped up. Are there any definite figures for these finds that we can actually trust?
Two, if there was indeed that amount of firing going on up there, then maybe it was being directed at a more substantial threat than Wolf Tooth and his merry men. If this is indeed the case then it implies that large numbers of warriors were beginning to cross at MTC a lot quicker than most of us have allowed for.
With regards to who was or wasn't hit at MTF, I've long thought that some of the accounts of the action at a ford may have been accidently placed there by some faulty translation. Sorry badly put. What I meant to say was that accounts of actions at the various fords got a a little mixed up both in the telling and the subsequent translation.
It would make far more sense to me that Smith was hit at one of the fords D. As Montrose with his usual common sense points out, Smith or anyone else hit at MTF would not have been dragged all the way to the Northern fords and then ended up on LSH if the wound had been anything other than superficial. More likely he would have been treated as Montrose said in the swale location occupied by Keoghs force. However, this would also necessitate Doctor Lord having to stay behind to attend whoever it was ---presuming it was an officer--- which in turn means we have to then find an explanation for him being found on LSH.
Finally, it's very nice to see some real discussion taking place here, with some interesting theories being bandied around.
F
|
|
|
Post by shan on Dec 19, 2010 5:33:05 GMT -6
Fred, I too have problems fitting the Wolf Tooth Big foot bunch into the scenario. One suspects that the fifty or so warriors that accompanied these two weren't that well armed and were perhaps, relatively untried as warriors. In which case why all that firing up on Luce and maybe Nye Cartwright rides? The sub text in Wolf tooth's own account of this action seems to imply that the venture comprised a deal more noise and bluster than anything else, all of which leaves one with an impression of them riding around yelling at the troopers from a safe distance, and possibly letting off the odd shot. Colorful and potentially a little dangerous if one let it get out of hand, but Custer and the others were familiar with this sort of thing and I can't really see them regarding it as any kind of threat.
If true then this poses a couple of questions. One, are those accounts of all that firing residue on those two locations to be believed? In other words have the accounts somehow become a version of Chinese whispers so that with the passage of time the actual numbers of finds have been hyped up. Are there any definite figures for these finds that we can actually trust?
Two, if there was indeed that amount of firing going on up there, then maybe it was being directed at a more substantial threat than Wolf Tooth and his merry men. If this is indeed the case then it implies that large numbers of warriors were beginning to cross at MTC a lot quicker than most of us have allowed for.
With regards to who was or wasn't hit at MTF, I've long thought that some of the accounts of the action at a ford may have been accidently placed there by some faulty translation. Sorry badly put. What I meant to say was that accounts of actions at the various fords got a a little mixed up both in the telling and the subsequent translation.
It would make far more sense to me that Smith was hit at one of the fords D. As Montrose with his usual common sense points out, Smith or anyone else hit at MTF would not have been dragged all the way to the Northern fords and then ended up on LSH if the wound had been anything other than superficial. More likely he would have been treated as Montrose said in the swale location occupied by Keoghs force. However, this would also necessitate Doctor Lord having to stay behind to attend whoever it was ---presuming it was an officer--- which in turn means we have to then find an explanation for him being found on LSH.
Finally, it's very nice to see some real discussion taking place here, with some interesting theories being bandied around.
Shan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 19, 2010 8:07:30 GMT -6
Shan,
First of all, let me say I agree with you: it is nice to see a little more reasonable discussion on these boards.
This whole Ford B/Luce Ridge/Nye - Cartwright business is a little perplexing, but I think it is that way because it was something of an interregnum between major events and the fighting that was to occur developed slowly.
The Wolf Tooth/Big Foot business is a big mystery to me; most writers-- hacks like myself-- allude to it and always say these fellows were off to the east somewhere. I have also come across recently another source that gives me similar information, though a lot is to be learned in the interpreting.
It is my feeling that the were few Indians on the east side of the river--at any time!-- and that these Indians posed little if any threat. I have been able to identify 24 of them-- 22 by name-- but no more. This, of course, is up to the time of Reno's retreat. By the time the volley firing was heard, most of Reno's men had reached the hilltop and Benteen was already there.
Now, unless you believe in the theory that ol' Sitting Bull laid a trap for Golden Boy and Custer was overwhelmed at "B"-- which I believe is nonsense-- then the volley firing was more demonstrative than recriminatory. The artifact fields are legitimate (it is very easy to identify cartridge cases from 1876 compared to those of a later, possible "salting"), but the maximum effective range of the 1873 Springfield was only some 250 yards. (Its maximum range was considerably more-- maybe as much as 2,500 yards before the ball fell below the 300' per second mark.) With that kind of a range the only place troops could be effectively shooting at was MTC or West Coulee, a possible ingress route for any Indians attempting to come up Smith's rear. That is a real possibility... along with Indians coming down MTC from the east... Wolf Tooth?
Plus, there were only two volleys, meaning the NCOs allowed men to continue to pop off at their leisure, telling me that neither ammo nor threats were of paramount import.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 19, 2010 8:08:01 GMT -6
Shan,
First of all, let me say I agree with you: it is nice to see a little more reasonable discussion on these boards.
This whole Ford B/Luce Ridge/Nye - Cartwright business is a little perplexing, but I think it is that way because it was something of an interregnum between major events and the fighting that was to occur developed slowly.
The Wolf Tooth/Big Foot business is a big mystery to me; most writers-- hacks like myself-- allude to it and always say these fellows were off to the east somewhere. I have also come across recently another source that gives me similar information, though a lot is to be learned in the interpreting.
It is my feeling that the were few Indians on the east side of the river--at any time!-- and that these Indians posed little if any threat. I have been able to identify 24 of them-- 22 by name-- but no more. This, of course, is up to the time of Reno's retreat. By the time the volley firing was heard, most of Reno's men had reached the hilltop and Benteen was already there.
Now, unless you believe in the theory that ol' Sitting Bull laid a trap for Golden Boy and Custer was overwhelmed at "B"-- which I believe is nonsense-- then the volley firing was more demonstrative than recriminatory. The artifact fields are legitimate (it is very easy to identify cartridge cases from 1876 compared to those of a later, possible "salting"), but the maximum effective range of the 1873 Springfield was only some 250 yards. (Its maximum range was considerably more-- maybe as much as 2,500 yards before the ball fell below the 300' per second mark.) With that kind of a range the only place troops could be effectively shooting at was MTC or West Coulee, a possible ingress route for any Indians attempting to come up Smith's rear. That is a real possibility... along with Indians coming down MTC from the east... Wolf Tooth?
Plus, there were only two volleys, meaning the NCOs allowed men to continue to pop off at their leisure, telling me that neither ammo nor threats were of paramount import.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Dec 19, 2010 9:56:43 GMT -6
Fred,
Volley firing. Volley firing is also used when you are firing at a massed target beyong individual effective firing range. So for me, the volleys indicate controlled fire at a distant target. I would say 400-600 meters.
I believe there were 10-20 Indians west of LCN ridge complex and SE of Ford B. I have read in secondary sources that Wolf Tooth's collection of folks split, half to the east, half to the west.
I will dig through book's looking for primary sources today, while I wait for the Patriots to play. I will say I am mind boggled at books written after 1980 with sloppy and incomplete citations. I am reading items that I know I read in other people's work, and author cites a broad based source, or no source.
I think this small Indian force had an unexpected, but major, impact on the battle. If they had not been there, Custer would most probably have gone to Ford B vicinity with a few aides and Bouyer. The Indians were enough to kill a man or two running loose, but no threat to a company or larger force.
The firing from LCN makes sense if the intent was to drive off or pin down this small Indian force to clear the way for a scout party.
Otherwise, they are wasting ammo. And when in sight of the largest Indian village ever seen on the Plains, I would think ammo conservation would be on the minds of the unit leaders.
Notice that firing too early at an insignificant target at ranges unlikely to inflict any casualties is another sign of pre combat jitters. It follows a consistent pattern of haste, confidence, and an eagerness to start the battle.
Respectfully
William
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 19, 2010 10:48:42 GMT -6
The discussion touches on too many land mines to remain silent.
1. WHEN THE ACCOUNT FIRST APPEARS is a necessary bit of info before allowing it in the tale. This is true whether white or red. It is to be doubted that you can use testimony and what we're told are early Indian accounts along with anecdotes appearing decades later for benefit.
2. Volley firing definition. People say "I fired a volley" or "I heard a volley" without much precision. Of note also are the people who claim to have heard, from the river, volley firing way north early on but failed to hear the much closer and documented volley firing as Weir and Godfrey pulled back later. This is accepted for whatever reason, when time conflation is far more likely.
What was thought an organized volley could have been coincidental cluster firing by the Sioux.
3. "I think this small Indian force had an unexpected, but major, impact on the battle." You've committed yourself to finding that impact without establishing the selection of impacts to apply.
4. After being on Weir Point, why would Custer feel the need to wander down with a few aids to Ford B? If the scouts knew the land, it's doubly perplexing. Second, a few Indians firing into rigid lines of not-all-that-competent horsemen not well trained to fight on horseback would be a very serious threat.
5. If this was the largest village ever seen on the plains, given the numbers well documented for Ft. Laramie gatherings pre CW and other times, the numbers of warriors would have been so enormous that nothing else need be considered. Further, Custer continuing the advance makes even less sense. It's one of the reasons I doubt Custer was in pro-active charge after the run down MTC.
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 19, 2010 14:04:39 GMT -6
Sorry but I believe the error is yours it is from RCOI. Here is the link to the page: digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&entity=History.Reno.p0380&id=History.Reno&isize=MIt certainly change the meaning from what others state that Benteen stated. We all know Godfrey had hearing problems maybe that is his source of error when he writes as HP presented. 'That Custer expressed a disbelief in the near proximity of any village whatever at that time.' Regards AZ Ranger PS I also checked Graham since it is abbreviated and found it on page 135. So I checked Nichols same words page 402. AZ, you are quite right, it is my error. Benteen does use that wording in his testimony and I missed it, not for the first time I must admit. Yes indeed, he is suggesting that Custer did not believe that the village and the Indians were located where they were ultimately found, but in my view that changes little. The fact is that, Reno apart, only Benteen makes that and similar claims, whilst there is strong evidence to the contrary. In the face of that evidence one can only conclude that Benteen was not being truthful. Firstly, your reference to Godfrey's slight hearing impediment and the extract you cite from the quote I gave. Unless I am misrepresenting you, you seem to be implying that it was Godfrey who misheard the phrase you have cited. If you re-read the whole passage I quoted I think you will see that Godfrey is saying that he is surprised that Benteen and Reno testified "That Custer expressed a disbelief in the near proximity of any village whatever at that time." No doubt you will correct me if I have misunderstood because if I am right, then the opposite view is true, i.e. Custer did believe in the near proximity of the village at that time and the following comments endorse that belief:- Reno's Report of July 5th 1876 - (Evening of June 24th) Custer called the officers together and informed us that beyond a doubt the village was in the valley of the Little Big Horn... Godfrey from the same source as before - "The difference in vision from the 'Crow's-nest' on the Divide can be accounted for. The scouts saw the smoke at the village, and the pony herds moving in the bottom when the vision was at the best, through a clear, calm atmosphere, with the early morning sun at their backs; General Custer's observations at the same place were made near midday. With a high overhead sun; he had hazy atmosphere from the heated earth. At all events, the General must have accepted the scouts' point of view, because he made their location of the village his objective."Godfrey from his 1892 Narrative - "It was from the divide...that the scouts had discovered smoke rising above the village, and the pony herds grazing in the valley... somewhere about twelve or fifteen miles away. It was impossible for him (Custer) to discover more of the enemy than had already been reported to him by the scouts." Red Star, Ree scout from the Arikara Narrative page 91 - "Charley Reynolds then pointed again, explaining Custer's mistake, then after another look Custer nodded that he had seen signs of a camp. Next Charlie Reynolds pulled out his field glasses and Custer looked through them at the Dakota camp and nodded his head again." Gerard's Story in Arikara Narrative page 171 - "Two Arikara scouts...brought word of a very large camp down in the Little Big Horn Valley...Custer ordered me to go with him...to where Lt. Varnum was. About daybreak we reached Varnum and could see the large black mass moving in front and down the Little Big Horn...The camp we found was the smaller camp (the larger camp was downstream farther), and was on the way to the larger camp.." Herendeen's July 1876 statement from the Custer Myth page 258 - "In about an hour Custer returned and said he could not see the Indian village, but the scouts and a half-breed guide, 'Nuch' Bayer (Mitch Bouyer) said they could distinctly see it some fifteen miles off." In his 1892 Narrative reproduced in the Custer Myth page 179, Benteen says, "He (Custer) could see nothing nothing through the old telescopic glass they had and didn't believe there was anything to be seen; now, strange perhaps to say, I did believe it...I'd sooner trust the sharp eye of an Indian than to trust a pretty good binocular that I always carried." So here we have Benteen believing that the Crows had seen the village but that Custer did not, yet everyone else saying that Custer not only believed the Crows (and Reynolds) but prepared his attack plan based on their information. Benteen's veracity must therefore be measured against the information provided by others and in my opinion, it is found wanting. Sincerely, Hunk
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 19, 2010 15:06:12 GMT -6
Once again, your belief that knowledge of the village location made the sending of Benteen to the left by Custer a poor decision needs expansion.HP If I didn't make my current theory clear then I am sorry. I believe that Custer did not believe the intel and did not believe he knew the location of the village precisely. Therefore sending Benteen to left makes perfect sense to me. It would only not make sense if he knew there was no chance for Benteen to see the village with it being located 2 miles north of Reno Creek along the LBH. Regards AZ Ranger Thanks for that clarification AZ. As I have stated previously, I believe that the Crow scouts, Bouyer and Reynolds had pinpointed the village location fairly accurately for Custer. That being so, his choices approaching that location would have been limited, as described by the late Jay Smith in his June 1989 Research Review article concerning attacking an Indian village, "Cavalry troops on the offense had two options for tactics. The first was called a penetration...the tactic of penetration did not work against Indians. The more conventional tactic employed in Indian fighting was the envelopment. This was executed by the use of a holding force which engaged the enemy while other parts of the command swung to right or left and hit him in the rear. The tactic was most effective in capturing villages. Few warriors were killed, since they would not fight on two fronts at the same time; rather, they would run. " It is the final few words in that last sentence which are consistently overlooked when blaming Custer in hindsight, yet Jay Smith's view is supported by men who were actually there:- Edgerly's 1881 Statement in Custer Myth page 219 - "...we would press on as quickly as we could and attack them in the village if possible. The idea was that the Indians would not stand against a whole regiment of cavalry, and that as soon as they learned of our advance they would try to get away from us." and, "He ordered Major Reno to move straight down the valley to the Indian village and attack, and he would be supported. He ordered Colonel Benteen to move off toward the left, at an angle of about forty-five degrees from Reno's courseand to attack any Indians he could find. The idea was that the Indians would run either to the right or left." Edgerly to Camp, Custer in 76 page 53 - Edgerly says that when the regiment left mouth of Rosebud no one expected the Indians would make a stand anywhere and fight...Nobody thought any hard fighting would take place...Custer's idea was that Indians would scatter and run in all directions. Hence he sent Benteen to the southwest." Godfrey in 'Custer's Last Battle' - "In all our previous experiences, when the immediate presence of the troops was once known to them, the warriors swarmed to the attack, and resorted to all kinds of ruses to mislead the troops, to delay the advance toward the camp or village, while the squaws and children secured what personal effects they could, drove off the pony herd, and by flight put themselves beyond danger, and then scattering made successful pursuit next to impossible." Terry to Sheridan December 28th 1875 - "Such an operation must, of course, be conducted with secrecy and rapidity, for it would not be possible for cavalry to follow the Indians for any considerable distance, should they receive notice of the approach of troops and seek safety in dispersion and flight." When Custer made his decisions he made them based on the 1876 military view that Indians did not stand and fight, but scattered and fled at the approach of a military column. At the Divide he deployed his forces accordingly in the knowledge that his subordinates knew the general location of the big village so that Benteen did not need to see it to move in its direction. Benteen was given his orders which he testified to violating. It is hardly just to point the finger of blame at Custer because Benteen did not carry out his mission. The Captain's distortion of his part in the events at the LBH have blinded many people over the years, but there is ample evidence available for us to ensure that we don't follow suit. Sincerely, Hunk
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Dec 19, 2010 15:53:12 GMT -6
This will be good. Hunkpapa tries to contradict AZ. "I do not know where the extract you have quoted comes from. Certainly not his RCOI testimony or either of his two narratives as far as I can see. Nor is it evident when he used those words, before or after the RCOI." Note, Hunkpapa does not cite his RCOI source for those sweeping statements. However, what he claims about Benteen's reply is briskly proven wrong. What he - just too perfect - imperiously claims Benteen 'certainly did not' do, Benteen certainly did. This means Hunkpapa either hasn't read the RCOI, takes lousy notes if he did, or just fabricates like conz and keogh. Not content with that major fail, he continues: I would appreciate the source if you have it as that would be helpful. What he said at the RCOI however, is unequivocal. "In General Custer's mind there were no Indians nor any village." Note that his uncited source for the RCOI is totally wrong, but he feels free to demand AZ's which, to great amusement, AZ provides. And it turns out Benteen's quote WAS equivocal, because Hunkpapa deliberately or incompetently gives an incomplete quote. Then, the condescending and hideously embarrassing "Once again, your belief that knowledge of the village location made the sending of Benteen to the left by Custer a poor decision needs expansion." But no, it does not. AZ's opinion is based upon fact, Hunk's upon his own incompetence. Hunkpapa has been proven wrong, that he misquotes from either malice or incompetence, that his repeated opinion on this issue without adjusting to demonstrated fact bespeaks his prejudice against Benteen or, far more likely, his need to nuzzle up to Custerphiles. What he accuses AZ of is baseless and, ironically, is an illustrative example that he himself is guilty of that which he accuses another to have. This is almost an exact repeat of my hash with him over the words honor and semantic. He admits to none of his obvious errors, he does not apologize, but fortunately he has yet to accuse AZ of something sleazy to deflect attention from his own fail as he does with me, but perhaps being called on it before hand will preclude that. This is my, not AZ's, opinion and observation. But I defy anyone to say this is not SOP for Hunkpapa and others. Because oops, he did it again, and will continue to do so unremarked. If you are going to act as AZ Ranger's shill (not that he needs one) then you must do a better job of it. As it is all you have done is to make yourself look the petulant sulker you are as once again you have referred to the "H" thread which so riles you, so the hole is even deeper, you look even sillier and AZ Ranger is out one shill. Perhaps he will take you on as a cheer leader? On second thoughts no, with your legs in a ra-ra skirt people will think the Christmas turkey has run away. They aren't far wrong in fact, as once again you have been well and truly stuffed.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Dec 19, 2010 17:47:57 GMT -6
Hunk, you and AZ keep on discussing your differences. DC, while I love him like a nuisance scab on my butt, only acts to insert sticks through moving bicycle wheels.
Be good and Merry Christmas,
Billy
|
|