|
Post by fuchs on Apr 11, 2013 14:05:02 GMT -6
What you-- and apparently Bray (whose work I have not read)-- seem to want to do, is to ignore contemporary accounts, surrender ledgers, and agency reports. I understand many of the agents were corrupt, but I would think that more than doubling actual figures would have been a little too much. I fear we are moving in a circle here. I tried to make it explicit that both Bray and Gray ARE using mostly the/all contemporary surrender data and agency counts. Both conclude that the reports by the agents that become "Government Official" data were hugely inflated between about 1870 and 1885. For this conclusion, they used data from the beginning of the reservation era up to 1890. Across the board, consistent numbers appeared only after about 1885. And both did not dismiss contemporary non-official numbers. They did use estimates from people that were familiar with the Indians during peacetime. And these com temporary estimates by knowledgeable, disinterested parties check out with the normalized census data: 15000-16000 Lakota. About 15000 Lakota in 1890 is hard data. The only way to reconcile the 30000-40000 numbers in the inflation era with that would be a huge die-off, or masses of people leaving the reservation, for which there is no historic evidence. How does the surrender census data support a number closer to 40000 than to 15000? I do realize that you have become suspicious of anything Gray proposed, but if two scholars (Bray is probably close to the caliber of Dickson for Lakota history) using slightly different methodologies based on verifiable data come up with a consistent result that makes sense in the historic context it is a strong indication that they are close to the mark. As to the "more than double is hard to believe": Gray is quoting sources that explicitly describe instances where exactly that is described. See my above post. Furthermore, fudging is evident in the actual census data, with the numbers of children rocketing up. The adults were adept at letting their children move around during the "census" for a kind of shell game. Both Indians and agent were interested in fudging the numbers higher that in reality, there were lax counting procedures most of the time, and the people reading those reports mostly had no clue whatsoever regarding the reality on the ground. It's rather astonishing that there were some agencies at all with consistent numbers throughout under those conditions.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 11, 2013 14:28:43 GMT -6
Fuchs,
I have no doubt the numbers were inflated, but I find it extremely difficult to believe so many people could be so fooled for so long. The numbers are not just about the LBH; they go back to estimates years earlier.
What this research implies is everyone, i. e., scouts, soldiers, civilians, etc., were completely incompetent with anything they may have estimated regarding Indian numbers and strengths. I do not reject revisionist history, but when the overwhelming majority of accounts tell me one thing and only a few wolves crying in the woods contradict those accounts, my antennae rise, wondering why. Such rejection would affect almost every battle fought between Plains Indians and the U. S. Army regarding battle strengths. Is that possible? Is that probable?
If you are arguing the point about a 10,000- or 12,000-person village and a 17,000-person village, I could-- and certainly would-- take your side and support your argument. A 10,000-person village-- based on your estimates-- would represent almost 60% of the Sioux nation (a little less because of the Cheyenne mix)... and I could even live with that... providing, of course, that 17,000 number was supportable.
With what I have found, however, with both Gray's methodology and even some of Bray's work, is an over-exuberance regarding their subject matter. I have stated my case regarding Gray; and I have found similar "inflations" (not of numbers, but of events and activities) in Bray's work. A good deal of what Bray wishes us to believe at the LBH is unprovable and wishful thinking. That is sloppy scholarship.
In the work I do, I present my argument and why I support such an opinion. When things become questionable, I present the other side(s) and explain why I have chosen as I did/do. Neither Gray, nor Bray present that aspect of research, and I find that troubling. They dictate (especially Gray) rather than inform, rather than cause debate and discussion; they reject out of hand. I find that a very imperious way of presenting one's case, and they better be damn sure they are correct. I have found neither to be so.
So... my mind is open to your ministrations and I say you could very well be correct regarding the total numbers. I cannot, however-- based on eye-witness and contemporary commentary-- believe there were fewer than 8,000 to 10,000 people at the LBH, with quite possibly as many as 4,000 warriors. And that does not mean I believe all those warriors got into the battle! My estimates for the Reno fight are 800 - 1,000; and for the Custer battle, 2,100.
Have we squared the circle somewhat?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2013 18:01:28 GMT -6
Fred and Fuchs; I don't know brown paint from Shinola about numbers.
In my younger days, and that was before I met you Fred, Georgetown education and all, my number was in the 14 to 1500 range as far as warriors go, and that without a smidgen of independent research. I attributed a lot to the idea of interior lines, which the hostiles did have, thinking they (the hostiles) were able to switch from Reno to Custer without a whole lot of trouble or passion. Until I started reading your stuff and following up with your reference I just assumed that most who fought Reno, also fought Custer. The numbers seem to work out for me and when I look also at the terrain it reinforced this view. Little did I know that the bulk of the hostiles either did not engage Reno, or were on the way to him when Georgie showed up.
For what it is worth and with no backup whatsoever my working figure is in the 23 to 2700 range (that is present for duty, excluding those away on TDY). One thing I am troubled by is how these estimates of warrior per shelter were obtained and just how valid do you both think the methodology stands up? I know that if I tried to estimate the warrior age population in Colorado Centre (yes Fred we use the British spelling) for our 713 lodges I would be at a loss. First define warrior, then guess at the average number per household. Now my wife maintains all this data at the CC Metro District office. By the way she is running for re-election next year, so all of you move here quick so I can pad the voting rolls will you. The point is that absent a census, how could anything be more than a SWAG (That's Systematic Wild Ass Guess for my friend from Germany)
Now let me see if I have this straight. More numbers serves the Army flacs. It serves the poor George look what he was up against crowd. Fewer numbers serves the vested interests of the Indian flacs. That serves the Indian interests like Jubal Early did for the ANV at Sharpsburg (Lee won the battle with only himself, Jackson, and their horse holders look how great we are) Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 11, 2013 18:34:47 GMT -6
There's a dif between army flacks and Custerphiles, who now often agree with the lesser numbers. If Custer was attacking a mass with 4k warriors plus Home Guard of young men/boys and Olde Guys (like that fluffy poof Sitting Bull.......) then he was incompetent or crazy. If he was attacking 1500-2k, then it could and should have worked and it's Reno's cowardice and Benteen's animosity, you see. Also, the Indian flacks want it to be a fair fight.
The least incompetent won that day, is all. Suspect that is often the case.
I still think it is helpful to get the LSH bodies more or less as described and impressed by location into the mind. Trace back how they - by which I mean officers - would end up there with their mounts: on the perimeter of a group.
The imagined placement of Keogh and C company's actions are just fan fiction. This is no evidence, just conjecture. Could be correct, of course.
And accounts that appear before 1879 should count more than those that first appear later subject to contamination.
You cannot pretend the Cross-Dressing warrior parades did not happen. You cannot pretend they were instantly recognized for what they were. You cannot assume the correct story hit all parties. If I'm only half right on that, a LOT of the Ford D hypotheses go out the window.
There was no real Ford D theory until artifacts were found there, and the CD's would explain it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2013 18:43:27 GMT -6
DC: Were you too trained by the Jesuits? Also please have a misspelling here and there so Fred will not grind me into dust.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 11, 2013 18:46:23 GMT -6
Not to worry Chuck, Fred was in the army when the shinola being used on their boots was brown. Myself, I fooled many an officer and received their complements with the plastic coating I used on the toe of my jump boots. bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2013 18:54:26 GMT -6
I am glad you cleared that up Britt. Hell I thought Fred told me one time that he wore only rags on his feet and left bloody footprints in the snow. Maybe I am mixed up. Maybe he told me that he was the one that first voiced those immortal words "Move your fat ass over Henry so I can get in the damned boat", that being when Fred and Henry Knox rowed George across some river in Pennsylvania.
Britt, I'm here to tell you that Fred is the walking, talking, living (all barely and by the thinnest of threads) embodiment of the epic poem "I Am The Infantry". Valley Forge (first sergeant Von Steuben appointed), Yorktown (Actually he was eating at Nick's Seafood Restaurant), Lundy's Lane (Fred was a Regular By God), Baltimore 1814 (Fred personally defended The Block) Cerro Gordo (Missed the shot at Santa Anna by a whisker), Bull Run (everyone thought is was the Confederates who blew up the bridge, No you guessed it, Fred was still smoking in those days and he chose to take a short break by the ammo dump), Gettysburg (They were shooting at Fred when Jenny Wade got whacked. I'm not going to tell you what Fred and Jenny were doing at the time, but Fred rolled over and the rest is history), San Juan Heights(Fred almost missed that one. Little Texas crapped on his boots and Fred was evacuated as a non battle casualty, but went AWOL from the field hospital), Cantigny( He was the original Lion of Cantigny- The 28th Infantry were a bit late, and Fred went without them), First Battle of the Follies Bergere (Little known but important for morale), Heartfelt Ridge (The other one Heartbreak Ridge is a little more well known - none the less). In fact I have personal knowledge that it was Fred standing beside David Crockett, when he said "Those Mexicans Can't Fight" The boy has seen it all I'm telling you. -----------I Am The Infantry -Follow Me.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 11, 2013 19:46:47 GMT -6
And Fred was the first one to yell "Sitting Bull" when jumping out of an airplane too.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2013 19:58:59 GMT -6
No Britt it was not. Sitting Bull was not in that movie. It was Wolf Tooth and Big Foot, and Fred got all mixed up and yelled Wolf Foot as he exited the aircraft. Hell it could have been worse. He could have yelled Big Tooth.
Just think about it Britt. Had it not been for Fred, four generations of airborne troopers would have stuck fear in the very heart of our countries enemies yelling Big Tooth at the top of their lungs.
Of course I guess you know it was Fred who suggested they use the tune from Beautiful Dreamer. They were thinking about De Camptown Races, but Fred put a stop to all that nonsense. Think about that one too. We just can't have troopers going around singing Do Da Do Da Day.
Now AK told me from his Air Force contacts that it was Fred who suggested An Ace in The Hole for Rickenbacker's Squadron, but Frank Luke told Fred that there would be no poker references because the 1st Aero Group was a family oriented organization. This was when Fred took a little leave from the Marne (I did mention that Fred WAS the ROCK " IN" the Marne, did I not) and being the patriotic soul that he is was spending his off hours patching up the Spads with chewing gum and bailing wire.
Of course you know those whispers about when Fred cross trained with the cavalry. He did manage to kill the dragon. Saint George was nowhere near the place at the time. It all came to naught though, and a sad story it was. It seems Keogh belched out garryowen (Keogh always belches in small g's, never in upper case, like my spell check tells me to do) and Fred answered Garry who. Transfer that man back to the dullards shouts Keogh, the pitiful whelp will never make an Irish Dragoon - I don't like the cut of his plume. Sad, very sad. Little did Keogh know that with Fred back in the Infantry there is never a dull moment. When Fred stops to take a pee at Fiddler's Green, what will they say then?
Britt I have a coffee mug that I think I have had my morning coffee from every morning for thirty or more years. On it is emblazoned
UNITED STATES ARMY "THIS WE'LL DEFEND" "CLASS OF 1775"
So every morning I sit and drink my coffee, look at the mug, see Class of 1775 and think of Fred.
|
|
|
Post by jon287 on Apr 11, 2013 23:01:41 GMT -6
Fred doesn't always drink beer but when he does..............That's because Fred is the most interesting.............. Stay thirsty my friends................LOL!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 11, 2013 23:23:36 GMT -6
Fred is in all seriousness, one of the finest men I have ever met, well met over the telephone and on this board. I hope to correct that situation when Fred travels through Colorado this summer. We, he and I, share the same old school tie, and at nearly the same time. He does not suffer fools gladly, nor do I. I will tell you though when Fred talks about this battle I listen very hard.
|
|
|
Post by jon287 on Apr 12, 2013 0:22:50 GMT -6
I don't know anyone who posts on these boards personally. That comment was only an attempt at humor. I respect Fred's knowledge of this battle as well.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 12, 2013 0:45:49 GMT -6
And it was taken as humor, and there is absolutely no reason it should not be.
As for Fred. He is an old soldier, and while he gave up the uniform long ago remains a soldier where it counts. Anyway, if Fred were not taken over the coals of jest once and a while, he would just not be his fun loving, tolerant self, and unable to see the beauty in life's lesser creatures, for instance those that disagree with him, or try to bang into the door of his car, in every parking lot in the State of New York. He does own Manhattan you know. Bought it, he tells me, from some Dutchman, for twenty six bucks worth of trinkets, two blankets, one with a hole in it, plus a 30% markup, and two season tickets (although they are in the cheap seats) to Giants Stadium for football season. He kept the good ones on the 50 yard line.
My post under yours (Number 40) was merely to sooth the savage beast in him, before he rips me a new one on the morrow.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 5:41:41 GMT -6
You guys are way too kind... but I appreciate it more than you know.
Chuck... I am scheduled to be at the LBH from June 18 through the 26th. I am also scheduled to have this rotator-cuff surgery on May 15 which would mean I would not be able to make the trip, so I am planning on canceling the surgery... well, postponing it. I am told it is a bitch-and-a-half: a sling for six weeks, then physical therapy for at least another six weeks. The pain isn't a touch of what I had before the spinal surgery, so I can deal with that. I cannot deal with missing my friends and that trip, however.
As for Colorado, Lisa and I are still working on it and I will let you know. It isn't a matter of going; it is a matter of when. We are going there, so we will get together. I would love to meet up with DC, but I don't want to bust in on his privacy, so we'll see.
I am told Boulder is one magnificent place, so I may go through there just to see it.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 12, 2013 5:55:09 GMT -6
Not to worry Chuck, Fred was in the army when the shinola being used on their boots was brown. Not quite, Britt, not quite. Close, however. Greens were just coming into service. When I first got to Georgetown-- through the impetus of my mother-- I joined ROTC-- through the impetus of my mother. I then joined a thing called "Spraker Rifles," thinking it was a rifle team-- through the impetus of my mother. After three weeks of constant close-order drill, I went up to the Cadet Captain (a senior) and asked him when we would be shooting these things. He looked at me like I was a complete idiot... which, of course, I was. It turned out to be a drill team-- and the love of my collegiate life. In my freshman year, we were dreadful. The upper-classmen wore the new greens, while the freshmen and sophomores wore the old browns. If we didn't look ridiculous!!!!, especially when we gussied them up with white accoutrements. Good heavens! If memory serves me correctly, we wound up something like 63rd of 65 teams in the national Cherry Blossom Tournament. The sand in the gristmill, however, was that our AFROTC team wound up around 22nd... galling. We were the campus Clarabells. I took care of that three years later, I'll tell you! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|