Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 26, 2010 11:51:48 GMT -6
A serious misrepresentation of two long time holy wars of mine has been posted on the formal LBHA board.
First, though, I openly and often have said I read the board and find some of the exchanges of value and good. Never pretended otherwise as fred pretends he never reads here. His representation of my stances amounts to fabrication.
I do not demand that people show how Reno could have made a better showing in his charge/retreat because there is a correct answer. I have no idea, I never served.
I do it because the vast majority of people who called him drunk, incompetent, a coward did and do not have remote standing to do so, which would require an experienced combat officer who knows what it is like to have lives at risk because of one's own split second decisions. My contention is that a good argument can be made he opted for the best choice available based upon what he could have possibly known at the time, and this for the eventual success of the mission or at least preservation of his segment of it.
It's up to those who damn him to prove him wrong, not me to prove him right. They wimp out, and actual combat vets on these boards at least admit there is a valid point here, and sometimes more. Nobody has shown how it could have been done 'better', by which is meant with fewer casualties.
And if there was no 'better' way, don't call a combat vet officer, a brevet general, of some merit a coward, drunk, or incompetent. If he was wrong, show how it could have been done better. Otherwise, shut the hell up: you have no standing for the matter. It's been pointed out by those who do not exchange Christmas cards with me that this quieted a number of wannabes, poseurs, and frauds. If so, good.
The second bit is about LSH and getting rid of the illustrative template that the fenced area and current arrangement installs in memory and affects thinking.
Again, there is no "correct" reworking. We cannot know what that is, but we can bring it closer to what was found on the 27th of June, 1876.
1. You get rid of the fence. This speaks to the Glossary of Terminology when people speak of 'the hill' or 'Custer field' because the terms vary from person to person and over the years. The fenced area is much smaller than the original term 'the hill' encompassed, because it included Boston and the nephew who were found (if at all) hundreds of yards from the monument. Perhaps further than where the SSL, another problem, currently exists.
2. You subtract the roughly 20% of marker totals that belong on Reno field or in the valley. We cannot know which ones they would be, but it doesn't really matter for the point. Down by a fifth, and Sweet may have over padded the easier area of the hill, it looks much scarier.
3. You get rid of the monument and place the Custer bros and the described surroundings from testimony and accounts up there. That's another big chunk from the west slope of LSH.
4. Then you roughly reposition the remaining markers according to the suggested grave locations by photo in 1877 and 1879. There are many possible choices, but there was by account and photo a line heading down outside the fence towards Keogh's field. The exact positions don't actually matter for the point, which is that outside general location it looks very much like two groups - from Keogh and from the river - attempted to reach the LSH summit. The coagulation of officers and their mounts at the top suggest they were shot off there. The fact the officers are not within a recognizeable defense perimeter for command - but rather on it and grouped together - decreases the chance of a Last Stand (a pro-active choice).
When you do this on your own, and see the change in the image happening before you, it imprints the opinions of those who thought it a rout and quickly over. There is no 'correct' configuration. But it is important to destroy the current one and recalibrate the visualization of the scene as found. The current markers do not even do that. "fell here" is true only if it means "fell somewhere hereabouts."
Everybody will get a different setup, but it does not matter and it does small good to install a new, and also unproveable, image. All that matters is there were 20% (at least) fewer men, not that close together, strung out. It feels so different as to be somewhat shocking.
First, though, I openly and often have said I read the board and find some of the exchanges of value and good. Never pretended otherwise as fred pretends he never reads here. His representation of my stances amounts to fabrication.
I do not demand that people show how Reno could have made a better showing in his charge/retreat because there is a correct answer. I have no idea, I never served.
I do it because the vast majority of people who called him drunk, incompetent, a coward did and do not have remote standing to do so, which would require an experienced combat officer who knows what it is like to have lives at risk because of one's own split second decisions. My contention is that a good argument can be made he opted for the best choice available based upon what he could have possibly known at the time, and this for the eventual success of the mission or at least preservation of his segment of it.
It's up to those who damn him to prove him wrong, not me to prove him right. They wimp out, and actual combat vets on these boards at least admit there is a valid point here, and sometimes more. Nobody has shown how it could have been done 'better', by which is meant with fewer casualties.
And if there was no 'better' way, don't call a combat vet officer, a brevet general, of some merit a coward, drunk, or incompetent. If he was wrong, show how it could have been done better. Otherwise, shut the hell up: you have no standing for the matter. It's been pointed out by those who do not exchange Christmas cards with me that this quieted a number of wannabes, poseurs, and frauds. If so, good.
The second bit is about LSH and getting rid of the illustrative template that the fenced area and current arrangement installs in memory and affects thinking.
Again, there is no "correct" reworking. We cannot know what that is, but we can bring it closer to what was found on the 27th of June, 1876.
1. You get rid of the fence. This speaks to the Glossary of Terminology when people speak of 'the hill' or 'Custer field' because the terms vary from person to person and over the years. The fenced area is much smaller than the original term 'the hill' encompassed, because it included Boston and the nephew who were found (if at all) hundreds of yards from the monument. Perhaps further than where the SSL, another problem, currently exists.
2. You subtract the roughly 20% of marker totals that belong on Reno field or in the valley. We cannot know which ones they would be, but it doesn't really matter for the point. Down by a fifth, and Sweet may have over padded the easier area of the hill, it looks much scarier.
3. You get rid of the monument and place the Custer bros and the described surroundings from testimony and accounts up there. That's another big chunk from the west slope of LSH.
4. Then you roughly reposition the remaining markers according to the suggested grave locations by photo in 1877 and 1879. There are many possible choices, but there was by account and photo a line heading down outside the fence towards Keogh's field. The exact positions don't actually matter for the point, which is that outside general location it looks very much like two groups - from Keogh and from the river - attempted to reach the LSH summit. The coagulation of officers and their mounts at the top suggest they were shot off there. The fact the officers are not within a recognizeable defense perimeter for command - but rather on it and grouped together - decreases the chance of a Last Stand (a pro-active choice).
When you do this on your own, and see the change in the image happening before you, it imprints the opinions of those who thought it a rout and quickly over. There is no 'correct' configuration. But it is important to destroy the current one and recalibrate the visualization of the scene as found. The current markers do not even do that. "fell here" is true only if it means "fell somewhere hereabouts."
Everybody will get a different setup, but it does not matter and it does small good to install a new, and also unproveable, image. All that matters is there were 20% (at least) fewer men, not that close together, strung out. It feels so different as to be somewhat shocking.