|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 12:21:58 GMT -6
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 17, 2014 12:21:58 GMT -6
Ian
It is often stated that certain evidence or findings lead to a single conclusion I am suggesting that at best they can be used for consistent with a theory rather than a finding of fact and excluding all others. I am not sure that the markers can even be used to determine a direct of travel.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 12:46:31 GMT -6
Post by Beth on Aug 17, 2014 12:46:31 GMT -6
I suppose so Steve, but the only way the men found on Calhoun hill could have ran into a pile up would have been if they were moving from Custer ridge back to MTC or LNC complex, I know that the markers cannot give us anything concrete, but it looks like air escaping from a balloon to me, with a long trail of markers leading up to Keogh’s marker. Ian. Why can't they be a long trail leading away from the Keogh marker? Beth
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 12:59:51 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 17, 2014 12:59:51 GMT -6
The markers ALONE could mean anything. The markers coupled with other evidence is the only way some sort of picture can be built. Some evidence is obviously tainted, so I think the best way to approach it is to simply say the markers show some event occurred on or near the marker, so using physical evidence, testimony verified by more than one source, and known doctrine, a fairly complete picture can be assembled.
An example using your example would be that if they were a long trail leading away from the Keogh marker, 1) Why was Captain Keogh's marker in a horrible defensive location, in a bowl or swale? 2) If it was a long trail what is there evidence of at least two and probably three successive skirmish lines between Henryville and the top of Calhoun Hill. 3)Why is Henryville where it is? Each of these mitigate against your long line, and support a south to north flow of battle.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 13:25:30 GMT -6
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 17, 2014 13:25:30 GMT -6
To add to Chucks post, it’s a long shot but can you add the markers to what the Indians said (I know we have accounts of accounts), but do any of them say that the soldiers appeared moved away, then come back chased by warriors and ran towards the river?
And why would they move right past this obvious crossing point (Ford B), it would seem like a good place for hostiles to move and cut you off from your support and lines of communication.
Ian.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 14:15:26 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Aug 17, 2014 14:15:26 GMT -6
I suppose so Steve, but the only way the men found on Calhoun hill could have ran into a pile up would have been if they were moving from Custer ridge back to MTC or LNC complex, I know that the markers cannot give us anything concrete, but it looks like air escaping from a balloon to me, with a long trail of markers leading up to Keogh’s marker. Ian. Ian, suppose Calhoun was the lead element of a retreat. Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 14:18:19 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Aug 17, 2014 14:18:19 GMT -6
I suppose so Steve, but the only way the men found on Calhoun hill could have ran into a pile up would have been if they were moving from Custer ridge back to MTC or LNC complex, I know that the markers cannot give us anything concrete, but it looks like air escaping from a balloon to me, with a long trail of markers leading up to Keogh’s marker. Ian. Why can't they be a long trail leading away from the Keogh marker? Beth Welcome, Beth, fair question. Would rock some boats, if correct. Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 15:29:02 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 17, 2014 15:29:02 GMT -6
That too is a fair question Tom. What if Calhoun was the lead element in a retreat. If he were and were to be confronted in that retreat and establish his initial skirmish line on the fairly low ground where it was facing Henryville he would be the worst 1st Lieutenant in the U S Army at the time. Calhoun Hill is the one area where we see the cavalry technique played out for us the way it should have been done. Positive control of his entire company is evident, until events outside his control started the breakdown.
To figure this all out does not require the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. It only requires the civil standard, the majority of evidence.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 15:34:56 GMT -6
Post by mac on Aug 17, 2014 15:34:56 GMT -6
The markers can be explained any number of ways. They are just one piece of evidence and we know that some are spurious and the best we can say is they represent where a body was buried. Note buried not fell, especially in the North. So too much small scale measuring of them is excessive. There must be a consideration of all evidence, including accounts of accounts, treating the evidence sensibly with respect to its origin and likely tainting. Cheers
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 16:00:29 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 17, 2014 16:00:29 GMT -6
I realized a long time ago that there were a lot of people a whole lot smarter than I am. Several of those people have written about this battle. Some really good people have studied in that The School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), The Combat Studies Institute, The National Park Service, and the Center of Military History to name a few. They are all very serious people, and most have military experience, at least those Army institutions do. What is unusual is that they all generally agree on the flow of the battle, and how Custer allowed his shoes to become untied. That version of the battle is the generally accepted narrative formulated after more than a hundred years of study. They worked hard to get it as right as possible, and they did not do it for people like you and I. They did it because this battle is a vehicle for training future generations.
Now any of you may find difference with the generally accepted narrative. It is your call, but when you present it, I think it wise to show why your version, whatever it may be is better,and more reasonable. I was once where you are, including DC. I gradually became more uncomfortable with my own conclusions. I am uncomfortable no longer, because I started to study tactics instead of personalities, terrain instead of agendas, reason instead of purveyed poop.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 17:27:22 GMT -6
Post by tubman13 on Aug 17, 2014 17:27:22 GMT -6
That too is a fair question Tom. What if Calhoun was the lead element in a retreat. If he were and were to be confronted in that retreat and establish his initial skirmish line on the fairly low ground where it was facing Henryville he would be the worst 1st Lieutenant in the U S Army at the time. Calhoun Hill is the one area where we see the cavalry technique played out for us the way it should have been done. Positive control of his entire company is evident, until events outside his control started the breakdown. To figure this all out does not require the criminal standard of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. It only requires the civil standard, the majority of evidence. I have read your next post and don't disagree with it. However above your comment above could be turned around, Calhoun may have been the best 1st Lt. in the US Army, as he picked that spot even though he was cut off, and he defended it well!. Just saying. Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 17:41:05 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 17, 2014 17:41:05 GMT -6
I personally think Calhoun did the best job of them all up that way. From what we see he was initially deployed dismounted in skirmish order lower down on what became Henryville oriented to the gradual build up to the south (note here gradual is relative in both time and space}. As pressure on him increased he took up at least one more skirmishing position to his rear, and probably two. I suspect he did not occupy the top of that hill, until C had their underwear pulled down for them, The markers now present indicate a splitting of L addressing two different directions. Now that could be phony I suppose with some contemporary jokester saying boy am I going to screw up those guys looking at this in 2014, so I will place the markers in what appears to be a formation, just to screw with their minds. My rational self says that idea is pigeon poop, and what is portrayed there is most likely for real, given the skirmish line evidence and Indian testimony.
Had he been the lead element in the retreat he would have stuck to the high ground upon which he was found. There would be no C down in Forlorn Hollow or what ever you wish to call it, and Captain Keogh would not have been caught in that swale, like an evangelical boy scout in a brothel.
Calhoun did all that was asked of him and more, but being a lead element in a retrograde was not one of the things asked..
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 19:06:23 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 17, 2014 19:06:23 GMT -6
Beth: If I might ask, in what part of Texas do you reside? Those are Bluebonnets if I am not mistaken.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 19:52:42 GMT -6
Post by Beth on Aug 17, 2014 19:52:42 GMT -6
Beth: If I might ask, in what part of Texas do you reside? Those are Bluebonnets if I am not mistaken. They sure are. I think one of the things I love most about Texas are the wildflowers. I have been in the Austin area for the past 2 years after living in SW Idaho for number of years. I'm a native Iowan though. Beth
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 21:07:43 GMT -6
Post by quincannon on Aug 17, 2014 21:07:43 GMT -6
When Tish Hinojosa is in Austin for her six months every year (the other 6 are in Germany) be sure to catch her show if you can. Great town Austin, second only to SA in my view. I get down to SA once or twice a year. Happy to have you aboard.
|
|
|
Gasp!
Aug 17, 2014 21:20:34 GMT -6
Post by Beth on Aug 17, 2014 21:20:34 GMT -6
When Tish Hinojosa is in Austin for her six months every year (the other 6 are in Germany) be sure to catch her show if you can. Great town Austin, second only to SA in my view. I get down to SA once or twice a year. Happy to have you aboard. Thank you for the suggestion and the welcome. I hope no one will take my questions as being disrespectful. I have my ideas about the events of May and June 1876 but I find the more views I hear, the bigger the picture I get. Beth
|
|