|
Post by Beth on May 17, 2015 18:25:06 GMT -6
Doubt there's much anywhere to find. What resides at West Point bore zero similarity to the description of Custer's burial garb, and in any case only a skull and some rib bones made the trip. He got the best initial burial, although they couldn't exactly ID it the next year because of ......things. How protected were most corpses? Saran wrap with a Manager's Special discount sign in Nature's Way Deli was the protection. These were notionally covered bodies in the hot sun with a shovel load of dust atop and in aggregate must have drawn every carnivore within 20 miles. That atop insects and everything else that rots a corpse. It's not like they lasted years to be buried as the head of the coulee wandered east and north. Coyotes could be mistaken for Sumo dogs by autumn, waddling about. Remember the soldiers who had to draw swords and kill the lizards that woke and bothered them the next year in great numbers? Any similar stories from other years? If so, never ran across one, myself, but the immediate effect of all that food must have affected the eating patterns of the smaller inhabitants. When that vanished soon enough, the lizard population dropped as well, as things that fed on the lizards had better options for a bit. Maybe. No way to know. But a lot of horse and soldier about. Still, every once in a while a more complete skeleton appears, but in aggregate, I'd doubt much point. Even if found, they'd have been washed downstream. My impression is they could not exit fast enough in 1876 or 7, that it was revolting, and the crappy job the Army did for years after - "this time we fixed it all up!" - becomes grotesque. No money, no time, no real interest, hurry up nature and make this go away. And one wonders if the one grave dug relatively deep for Custer and TWC would have attracted visiting Indian attention, because they'd know soon enough it was Custer they'd killed. And what they buried in 76 is not what they buried at West Point if the written descriptions are correct. I'd bet if they DNA'd the bones under the monument that a discomforting number are Custer family items. Personally I think they did the best they could do with the tools they had. I suspect they all knew that the job was far from adequate, but what was done was better than just riding off, which would have been very offensive to the post Civil War mindset. The other options would have been a burial in a mass pit which would have been difficult with the tools they had at hand and the state of the bodies--not to mention the pressure of wanting to get the wounded to safety and everyone else back into the fight. They could have made a large funeral pyre but I don't know if that was an acceptable thought for the time and it doesn't solve the problem of moving the corpses in such advanced decay and getting people out of the area as quickly as possible. They made the best effort they could with an eye towards either removal or reburial. They labeled graves where they could and marked them. Isn't it ironic that a make due solution at the time is one of the things that makes the Battlefield such a compelling place today. Without those stones, its just a patch of high praire where a battle took place. The stones make it unique. Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 17, 2015 19:12:45 GMT -6
It is only the truth, Duane. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by buckwheat on May 17, 2015 19:31:15 GMT -6
Always an interesting topic re LBH Fred. I can remember either reading in the Great Falls, Mt Tribune or hearing on the evening news immediately after the prairie fire in 1983 ( I think) that in one of the Draws leading down from LSH spade marks in the sides of the draw were visible and the speculation was that they were left from the June 1876 burials,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,
Also, don't know if you have read Michno's "Mystery of E Troop" but if memory serves his premise was that the bodies were in one of the adjoining draws.
Numerous warrior accounts speak of a "slaughter" in a draw between the river and LSH as well.
Another twist to the story we all want to understand,,,,,,,
Regards, Buckwheat
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 17, 2015 20:06:36 GMT -6
First Sergeant Duane, answers to the company commander, and depending upon the issue the Sergeant Major.
The Sergeant Major answers to the Colonel.
Learned that from my Sergeant Major.
|
|
|
Post by mac on May 17, 2015 20:32:46 GMT -6
Always an interesting topic re LBH Fred. I can remember either reading in the Great Falls, Mt Tribune or hearing on the evening news immediately after the prairie fire in 1983 ( I think) that in one of the Draws leading down from LSH spade marks in the sides of the draw were visible and the speculation was that they were left from the June 1876 burials,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,, Also, don't know if you have read Michno's "Mystery of E Troop" but if memory serves his premise was that the bodies were in one of the adjoining draws.
Numerous warrior accounts speak of a "slaughter" in a draw between the river and LSH as well.
Another twist to the story we all want to understand,,,,,,, Regards, Buckwheat One of the things that worry me about Deep Ravine is that it seems an odd place to try to breakout towards; in that it is towards the village/river when I would want to go north or east. Secondly I would expect it to actually contain warriors at that point in the battle. In that situation I think my preference would be to head north. Fred makes an excellent, evidenced, case in his book for F to have been down in that area intially before being forced to LSH. I do not see why a breakout would head that way later. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by buckwheat on May 17, 2015 20:38:12 GMT -6
Always an interesting topic re LBH Fred. I can remember either reading in the Great Falls, Mt Tribune or hearing on the evening news immediately after the prairie fire in 1983 ( I think) that in one of the Draws leading down from LSH spade marks in the sides of the draw were visible and the speculation was that they were left from the June 1876 burials,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,, Also, don't know if you have read Michno's "Mystery of E Troop" but if memory serves his premise was that the bodies were in one of the adjoining draws.
Numerous warrior accounts speak of a "slaughter" in a draw between the river and LSH as well.
Another twist to the story we all want to understand,,,,,,, Regards, Buckwheat One of the things that worry me about Deep Ravine is that it seems an odd place to try to breakout towards; in that it is towards the village/river when I would want to go north or east. Secondly I would expect it to actually contain warriors at that point in the battle. In that situation I think my preference would be to head north. Fred makes an excellent, evidenced, case in his book for F to have been down in that area intially before being forced to LSH. I do not see why a breakout would head that way later. Cheers Mac, I have often questioned why dismounted men would head towards the river and thus the Indian camps as well. Has been explained to me that these men were actually trying to regain their mounts which had stampeded to that area......who really knows?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 17, 2015 21:42:19 GMT -6
Beth,
They couldn't do more than they did in '76, true. No complaints. But subsequent visits for the numerous burials were mostly fueled by complaints from people who'd been to the field and it got in the paper. If nobody had visited and nobody except the Army knew, would the Army have done anything at all after 1877's photo op and officer distribution? I kind of doubt it. It's public money.
But, it's the assumption that finding bodies in part or whole would prove something at this point. It's the focus on (rather) pointless detail that subs for actual and far more relevant issues. We'll never know how or why they got there. Nor do they verify Indian accounts. Through the RCOI 'Reno Creek' is what MTC was called. It's on the map used as such.
And the stones are unique on a battlefield, I think, but they're largely a fib. They're not where someone 'fell', and even if dragged somewhere we don't know where in the sequence they died, and if the recollections of the participants after the battle are correct, they were looking for the softest nearby ground to dig, and the marble only suggest where they may have been first buried based on wooden stakes previous. The markers do grant elegance and regard, but they image of LSH is bogus because of the numbers and placements of markers along with the fence. It greatly adds to the view of an initial organized defense and to the last man, etc. Camp thought the line of markers once considered the SSL were done deliberately to install the image of firing line conducive to that point of view.
So barely stopping short of reading sacrifice entrails of bison to determine where the bodies are along with the 'what ifs' absorb a lot of energy even though it won't make any difference. Beware the accumulation of such detail, although like many I'm curious as well. But at this stage it's the issue of how history is written and what it is based upon. LBH is pretty terrifying in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 17, 2015 23:28:36 GMT -6
Beth, They couldn't do more than they did in '76, true. No complaints. But subsequent visits for the numerous burials were mostly fueled by complaints from people who'd been to the field and it got in the paper. If nobody had visited and nobody except the Army knew, would the Army have done anything at all after 1877's photo op and officer distribution? I kind of doubt it. It's public money. But, it's the assumption that finding bodies in part or whole would prove something at this point. It's the focus on (rather) pointless detail that subs for actual and far more relevant issues. We'll never know how or why they got there. Nor do they verify Indian accounts. Through the RCOI 'Reno Creek' is what MTC was called. It's on the map used as such. And the stones are unique on a battlefield, I think, but they're largely a fib. They're not where someone 'fell', and even if dragged somewhere we don't know where in the sequence they died, and if the recollections of the participants after the battle are correct, they were looking for the softest nearby ground to dig, and the marble only suggest where they may have been first buried based on wooden stakes previous. The markers do grant elegance and regard, but they image of LSH is bogus because of the numbers and placements of markers along with the fence. It greatly adds to the view of an initial organized defense and to the last man, etc. Camp thought the line of markers once considered the SSL were done deliberately to install the image of firing line conducive to that point of view. So barely stopping short of reading sacrifice entrails of bison to determine where the bodies are along with the 'what ifs' absorb a lot of energy even though it won't make any difference. Beware the accumulation of such detail, although like many I'm curious as well. But at this stage it's the issue of how history is written and what it is based upon. LBH is pretty terrifying in that regard. I think that eventually they would have done something. I think that the remoteness of the battlefield made them feel it was on a back burner. They probably didn't foresee it becoming a sightseeing stop so quickly after the event. There was the factor of lack of funding, but I wonder how much the sting of Custer's defeat made people put bringing the bodies back east on a back burner. This is totally my own opinion but perhaps there was a big of if Custer hadn't messed up we wouldn't be paying for this expensive war. However part of me imagines Sheridan turned the poor widows and mothers on Congressmen in all sorts of soirees and musical evenings. I imagine no congress critter in his right mind would want to explain to a mother why he won't pay to bring her son home. The stones add the human element to the battlefield. I know that a certain number of visitors are always going to believe that it marks were bodies are still buried, or that it was where they fell, or not realize that the count isn't right. I'm kind of okay with that. The person who wants the facts goes crazy of course but part of me realize that a huge number of people who stop at LBHB stop because it's on the way, not that it is their destination. If they spend an hour or so thinking about the battle, enjoying the incredible area and take away just one or two fact, then they got their money's worth. And if 1 in 10 visitor takes more of an interest or has a kid who's wants more information then we are golden. BTW I love that they have added (since my first visit) the markers for warriors and the Native American Memorial. That Memorial is brilliant and so alive. It was amusing though to sit near it and hear mainly old men grousing about it's inclusion in "Custer's Battlefield" Times are changing bubba. Off topic to LBH but a couple few year ago I saw a documentary about the Luminary display marking the anniversary of Antietam. It was one of the most incredible things I have ever seen. Seeing all those candles and knowing it was a life snuffed short was humbling. Unfortunately I think a display like that would be lost at LBH but the stones serve as well.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 17, 2015 23:35:52 GMT -6
Always an interesting topic re LBH Fred. I can remember either reading in the Great Falls, Mt Tribune or hearing on the evening news immediately after the prairie fire in 1983 ( I think) that in one of the Draws leading down from LSH spade marks in the sides of the draw were visible and the speculation was that they were left from the June 1876 burials,,,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,, Also, don't know if you have read Michno's "Mystery of E Troop" but if memory serves his premise was that the bodies were in one of the adjoining draws.
Numerous warrior accounts speak of a "slaughter" in a draw between the river and LSH as well.
Another twist to the story we all want to understand,,,,,,, Regards, Buckwheat One of the things that worry me about Deep Ravine is that it seems an odd place to try to breakout towards; in that it is towards the village/river when I would want to go north or east. Secondly I would expect it to actually contain warriors at that point in the battle. In that situation I think my preference would be to head north. Fred makes an excellent, evidenced, case in his book for F to have been down in that area intially before being forced to LSH. I do not see why a breakout would head that way later. Cheers I agree Mac but maybe It was like Reno in the woods, they took the only path open to them. It could be they were just out of their mind in fear and exhaustion and that looked like a way out to their reptile brain--the part of our brain that takes over for survival. Any chance of surviving is always more inviting to certain doom. They could have been fleeing and channeled down the ravine,
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 18, 2015 6:06:22 GMT -6
It is hard to figure out why so many ran in the opposite direction to their commander (Custer), when Calhoun’s line broke they ran towards their commander (Keogh) probably leaving a trail of dead and another trail of death followed in a line to Custer.
E Company never made a similar move but choose to run away and not re-join HQ/F, so maybe we had a surge of Indians from over cemetery hill which filled that void between the two units, but there again this area would also be full of Indians when they attempted to break-out from LSH and some of them managed to reach deep ravine.
So we could be looking at a multitude of factors that made them run, firstly; Indians in large numbers to their rear, secondly; their horses were spooked and ran off in the direction of the river, thirdly men started to bunch and when one group ran they all ran, E Company could have been down to one officer (Lt. Sturgis) so either got killed early in the piece or lost control when panic set in.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 18, 2015 6:19:09 GMT -6
One of the things that worry me about Deep Ravine is that it seems an odd place to try to breakout towards; in that it is towards the village/river when I would want to go north or east. Secondly I would expect it to actually contain warriors at that point in the battle. In that situation I think my preference would be to head north. Fred makes an excellent, evidenced, case in his book for F to have been down in that area intially before being forced to LSH. I do not see why a breakout would head that way later. Cheers Mac, I have often questioned why dismounted men would head towards the river and thus the Indian camps as well. Has been explained to me that these men were actually trying to regain their mounts which had stampeded to that area......who really knows? I wonder that also. I also wonder where the horses were? I am guessing that my horses would run toward the river. AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by mac on May 18, 2015 6:46:38 GMT -6
Horses are an interesting idea! Thanks! I shall think some more. The Benteen map somehow still troubles me. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 18, 2015 6:56:08 GMT -6
Mac in what way does the Benteen map trouble you?
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 18, 2015 7:59:02 GMT -6
Okay… I sense some of this is heading off into no-man’s land, so let me try to swing it back with a modicum of empiricism.
First of all, let’s take the knowns: they are fairly simple and straightforward. Custer/Keogh/Yates went into this thing with 210 men. We also know of that number, 121 rode with Keogh and 89 with Custer/Yates. No one survived; no one escaped. That means we need to account for all 210. Right?
Well, we know of five bodies found out of the generally accepted areas of the battlefield: Kellogg, Dose, Foley, Butler, and William Brown. We also know of the Custer/Yates contingent of 89, three—Kellogg, Brown, and Dose—died elsewhere: those off the rez, so to speak, bodies, leaving Custer/Yates with 86. Keogh lost two: Butler and Foley, leaving him with 119. That leaves us with 205 we need to deal with.
So… on the rez we need to account for 86 for Custer and 119 for Keogh. We also know 11 of Keogh’s men “escaped” to LSH, dropping his total to 108 and raising the Custer/Yates contingent to 97.
These numbers are—in my opinion—100% correct: no room for error; bodies ID’ed and in many cases by multiple accounts. Now… some writers/historians/battle “students” claim as many as 20 men escaped from the Keogh contingent, but I have found no credible proof or evidence for such claims. Eleven were identified, so that is what I am going with.
Now we go into the slightly less reliable area: something less than 100%. Of the Custer/Yates grouping—now some 97 bodies all told—multiple sources counted 42 on what can be considered LSH, admittedly a rather nebulous area that extended down a bit and encompassed more territory than just the top of a knoll. Multiple sources also concluded 28 bodies—all identified as belonging to E Company—were discovered in a ravine. That gives us a total of 70 of the Custer/Yates 97. Six more bodies were found on Cemetery Ridge: 76. One—SGM Sharrow—was ID’ed north of the knoll: 77. Multiple source estimates told us of 6 to 10 bodies on what we now call the South Skirmish Line, but archaeology and other placements in other areas allow us to conclude this number is probably 9—fitting within the parameters left us by eye-witnesses: 86. Five more bodies were found in the area generally ascribed as Cemetery Ravine: 91. Three more were found in the so-called “basin” environs: 94.
That leaves us with 3 unaccounted for. I will come back to these.
For Keogh’s command, archaeology—which is about all we have, so the percentages drop somewhat—tells us 9 men died in Calhoun Coulee. Based on what we know of Harrington’s command and bodies found elsewhere, this is a very reasonable—and probably very accurate number. In addition, 17 more bodies were found on Finley-Finckle Ridge (the same caveats applying), and all of these men who were identified were ID’ed as C Company troopers. On Calhoun Hill, 11 more bodies were found, and of those identified, all were from L Company. That equals 37 of Keogh’s 108 remaining troops (obviously the number once the “refugees” are deleted), bring the total down to 71. Five bodies were found in the area where the held-horses were kept (one ID’ed from L Company): 66. Four more were found on the west side of Battle Ridge, probably, by their location, members of Keogh’s command: 62. Marker 174 (BSM Bailey, I Company) is near the reservation’s eastern boundary—still considered the Keogh Sector: 61. Eliminating paired markers in a rather jumbled mass—admittedly an insubstantial exercise somewhat over my keystone 51% benchmark—we can account for precisely that 61 number.
Let’s go back to the missing three from Custer/Yates. A couple of Indian accounts refer to troops from this contingent riding up to the knoll, then over…. Over to where?
Well, just over the crest of LSH archaeologists discovered a position occupied by Indians, Indians firing onto the top of LSH. Just over this hilltop and to the south are several more markers, a few of which are paired. It is a not unreasonable assumption to think three troopers crested the hilltop, were met by sharp firing, swung right (south) and were killed there. There is archaeological evidence of bodies being buried there (and in fact, this is the area where Marc Kellogg’s marker is incorrectly placed today).
Now… let’s go back to one of my little principles: simplicity. No one but E Company troops was found in Deep Ravine: 28 of them. We also know E Company and HQ were the only units to spend more than a few minutes on Cemetery Ridge, so it is assumed those six markers once located there are E Company men: that is 34, total. LT Smith was the only E Company member found on LSH: 35. E Company had 38 men including LT Sturgis. In all likelihood, 3 of those 9 men found on the SSL were from E Company.
Why would the 28 men fight in Deep Ravine? The answer is, they didn’t!!! They were forced there. Indians occupied Cemetery Ridge, having chased Custer and Smith to LSH, and when an organized move off LSH took place, Indians from the ridge rode down into the shallow Cemetery Ravine/Coulee and forced the troops into the ravine. Remember… those men saw Indians coming out of that ravine when they were with Custer on Cemetery Ridge; so why would they try to get into the ravine? The only possible safety was to try to reach the river: the camp did not extend that far north and the perception of safety always lies with other men and cover. Nothing else makes the slightest sense.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 18, 2015 8:15:53 GMT -6
|
|