|
Post by fred on Jul 17, 2015 9:39:16 GMT -6
I would like to try something... old.
I know this has been done many times before and has been beaten to death, but we never seem to come to any conclusions, especially supported conclusions. Either digressions or arguments or personalities always seem to get in the way; we go off course and the whole thing gets dropped without ever seeing a connected, cogent, intelligent scenario arrived at.
Here is what I would like to do... and I will follow-up and through, constantly. I have done an inordinate amount of work on this aspect of the battle and am in the process of doubling my effort. If we can game-play the entire event, beginning to end, we should get a much better understanding of what actually occurred, without all the preconceptions and silliness some like to throw into things. This will, in all likelihood, cause some of you to scurry for the books, but if we add in everything we can for each individual act, order, movement, event, etc., I believe we can reach a fairly solid and reasonably accurate consensus of what befell three companies in the Little Big Horn valley.
In addition, I would be delighted to put the names of any contributors-- if they would wish-- into whatever I have published off this site.
So let us start from the beginning... and set parameters: Reno has crossed to the north side of Reno Creek; the eight companies are in the proximity of the lone tepee and Gerard's Knoll, and Custer issues orders to his adjutant. Let me start it off with this:
Adjutant William Winer Cooke issued an order to Major Marcus Reno: “Custer says the Indians are about two miles and a half ahead, on the jump, follow them and move at as rapid a gait as you think prudent, and to charge afterward, drive everything before you, and you will be supported by the whole outfit.”
Is this true? Who heard it? Who remarked about it? Was it Cooke who issued the order... or Custer? What does "support" mean?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jul 17, 2015 10:20:32 GMT -6
Fred,
Does it matter who issued the order? Custer or Cooke acting for Custer. Reno did not take it upon himself to shag those NA's. I think you know those who overheard better than I, without looking it up. Did Keogh and Cooke have a discussion with Reno after he received the orders? If so where were they when this discussion took place? If that discussion, in fact, took place what was contained in that discussion, and overheard it?
With regard to promised support, I know what assume means! That promised support was one of the 1st building blocks to disaster.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 17, 2015 10:56:04 GMT -6
Fred,
This old chestnut...
I think it is clear that Reno's "staff" (and overhearing soldiers at the head of Reno's column) also thought there would be direct support, and Reno's actions in the valley were consistent with those being the orders. No need for Reno to send messengers to GAC if Reno was under the impression that (indirect) support would be provided by GAC riding up the eastern bluffs and proceeding downstream to frontally assault another part of the village across the river.
WO
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 17, 2015 11:21:23 GMT -6
Sargent Davern, Reno's orderly, and Lt. Wallace were riding with Reno and were likely in position to see and hear what orders Reno received. Both testified that the order came from Cooke, but neither mentioned anything being included about being supported. In fact, Davern testified as follows, "... The General directs you to take your three companies and drive everything before you", "Those I believe were the exact words." Reno himself testified that the orders came from Cooke but included the "support" portion. On the other hand, Girard, who was riding with Custer at the time, testified that the orders, including the "be supported portion" were given directly by Custer when Reno was called across the creek to confer. It therefore seems likely that the orders, without the support part, originally came from Cooke, were repeated with the support part included when Reno and Custer conferred, and Reno combined the two occurrences in his memory (after all, he was drunk you know) when he said that the orders that he received from Cooke included the support element.
In the context of the place and times, support normally meant from the rear, which is what Reno indicated that he expected. In that context Reno would be expected to make contact and begin to develop the situation, while Custer with the follow on force would take what action the situation offered or demanded. Less common was support via flanking or envelopment (while legitimate actions, they were not normally thought of as "support"), but, in those instances, the "support" was at the very least coordinated, which, in this instance, it was not.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 17, 2015 11:40:40 GMT -6
The interesting thing here-- at least to me... and Tom, this is why it is important who said what to whom-- is the preponderance of evidence, i. e., accounts, pretty much say Cooke issued the orders to Reno... and not Custer. That the two-- Custer and Reno-- spoke, I do not doubt. The reason it is important is some will claim Custer issued the orders and told Reno he would be "supporting" him by his bluff run and not directly behind... which is what I and so many others believe direct support is. The problem here is the usual business about reading into something with no real back-up or historical support. It becomes reality in the minds of some and is the first stroke in the condemnation of (in this case) Reno. These people further state that since Custer was seen on the bluffs by troops riding down the valley, Reno was aware of it as well. This is another assumption-- similar to the first one-- and a second stroke in the argument. From my perspective, I would much prefer to deal with the evidence we have, the opinions of those who were there, than some half-baked theories of those trying to make a point.
I believe Custer did speak to Reno, but only momentarily to tell the major to send out Hare and a few scouts. Custer himself had just done this with Yates' Company F troopers, and since those 20 to 50 Indians spotted by Davern, Gerard, Herendeen, and Hare were to the regiment's front, it was a wise move. Apparently, Reno pulled them in as they approached the river, but SGT White of M Company makes it fairly clear this is what happened. Is anyone familiar with this and does it make as much sense as I think?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 17, 2015 11:43:40 GMT -6
FROM RCOI:
Girard: The general hallooed to Reno . . . and Custer said: "you will take your battalion and try to bring them to battle and I will support you . . .the order I heard was given by Gen. Custer in person to Reno. I do not pretend to say that Adjutant (Cook) did not deliver it first.
Herendeen: ". . . I heard Gen. Custer tell Maj. Reno to lead out and he would be with him . . ."
Dr. Porter: " I heard the Adjutant give an order to Major Reno . . . the Adjutant told him the Indians were just ahead and Gen. Custer directed him to charge them. Reno asked whether Custer was going to support him. The Adjutant answered that Custer would support him. Reno asked if the General was coming along and he said "Yes, the General would support him. I head no other order."
Major Reno: ". . . I moved forward and shortly Lt. Cook came to me and said "Gen. Custer directs you to . . . charge the village . . . you will be supported by the whole outfit."
Lt. Wallace: ". . . Maj. Reno was ordered forward . . . to charge them and the others would support him . . . Custer's order was about this: 'The Indians . . . are on the jump . . . charge them . . .and we will support you' I think those were the words . . . Lt. Cook came over from Custer to Reno and said: 'they (Indians) are on the jump and charge them . . .and he (Custer) will support you.'"
From testimony at the RCOI there was enough testimony to say Reno would be supported . . . by whom, when or where never materialized leaving Reno out to dry and having to make on-the-spot decisions to save his command.
There is testimony that Custer directly gave orders to Reno but there is evidence that Cooke did so also. Could witnesses confuse Cooke with Custer and vice versa? Were Custer & Cooke both wearing the same clothing? Cooke's sideburns/whiskers would be prominent so it's hard to believe Custer/Cooke could be confused. Regardless of who gave the orders it appears that "support" was a prominent word in the testimony and one would have to assume Reno believed he would be supported . . . but again . . . by whom, when or where.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 17, 2015 12:40:52 GMT -6
The interesting thing here-- at least to me... and Tom, this is why it is important who said what to whom-- is the preponderance of evidence, .... The problem here is the usual business about reading into something with no real back-up or historical support. In evaluating the evidence, both as it applies to this and other things, I think it is important to begin by making a determination as to how likely that someone was even in position to hear the things that they said they heard. For example, the record is full of accounts by various enlisted men as to what orders Custer issued to Reno and Benteen, what Reno and Benteen later said to each other on the hill, etc. It seems to me that, unless the enlisted men in question just happened to be standing nearby while the officers conferred with each other, which I feel unlikely, they wouldn't have heard the conversations in question and would have no way of knowing what was said other than by rumor and innuendo. As this relates to the immediate question, Moylan testified that he was not in position to hear the exchange of orders and had no way of knowing what they were other than by hearsay. I think that is an important acknowledgement by Moylan that his only knowledge is secondhand, and I suspect that the same is true of the "remembrances" of a lot of others as it relates to various aspects of the battle. In that sense, the individuals mentioned previously all stand a good chance of having been where they said they were and heard/saw what they indicated in regard to Reno's orders. While minor details vary, as should be expected when recalling something nearly three years later, everyone's accounts were fundamentally the same.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jul 17, 2015 12:48:32 GMT -6
Capt Fred,
I think your exercise is going to be enjoyable and bring out some fresh thinking. I agree with all the posts that the forum members have responded to you with. I think it is clear that Reno was ordered to attack and that he would be supported. But, after all your years of research you already knew that. So my question is, are you asking for proof of the exact words that were used in Custers orders.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 17, 2015 13:12:50 GMT -6
There is ample evidence (proof) that Reno was to be supported. When, where and by who is the question!
Any time a major incident takes place all kinds of people come out and say they saw, heard and witnessed it. In the case of the LBH every survivor seems to be in the right place at the right time and witnessed every important decision, comment, and event. Is it any wonder we are still trying to figure out what happened on June 25, 1876?
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 17, 2015 13:20:04 GMT -6
As a side comment on the support issue, many argue that Reno's support was to come from Benteen but then condemn Benteen for doing just that - stopping to "support" Reno in his time of need. They don't seem to notice the contradiction in these arguments.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 17, 2015 14:44:47 GMT -6
... my question is, are you asking for proof of the exact words that were used in Custers orders. No, Dan, not at all. I do not think the precise words are necessary as you would still have multiple versions. What would be important is if one version contradicted another or added something another would not contain. Jodak, Your point is extremely valid and is one of my major considerations in whatever I have written. PVT Davern needs to be heeded: he was Reno's orderly and as such, probably spent considerable time with and next to the major. PVT Thompson, a helluva lot less so. This is the precise issue I have with John Fox' accounts of events on Reno Hill. But that is another area, not something to be discussed right now. My point here, however, is you are 100% correct in your assessment. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jul 17, 2015 14:58:31 GMT -6
Advance Guard. The term advance guard has specific meaning. The advance guard is one or tactical bounds ahead of main body. This means the main body should have followed, at a distance of 300-800 meters.
Actions. The actions following the order at the lone tepee also provide data on what happened. The main body slowed down and allowed the Reno detachment to get several hundred yards ahead. Then they maintained the proper interval of an advance guard and main body from the lone tepee to Ford A. I believe this is 1.7 miles, right Fred?
Support. Whatever orders were given, LTC Custer never provided any support to the Reno Bn. He also failed to tell him he was out of position, which it was duty and responsibility to do. I can't say whether or not Custer disobeyed Terry's orders. I can say he is guilty of dereliction of duty.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 17, 2015 16:54:03 GMT -6
As a side comment on the support issue, many argue that Reno's support was to come from Benteen but then condemn Benteen for doing just that - stopping to "support" Reno in his time of need. They don't seem to notice the contradiction in these arguments. Jodak,
They also don't make allowance for Martini being a lone messenger, who could easily have stumbled into a hostile or group of hostiles en route to Benteen and failed to deliver any message/note, when placing Benteen at the heart of the Keogh/Yates collapse.
The question I always ask myself; what, if anything, did Reno do in the valley fight inconsistent with his version of his received orders about direct support...?
WO
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jul 17, 2015 17:58:39 GMT -6
jodak What an interesting point you make regarding Benteen to be considered Reno's "support." I admit that I had never considered it. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 18, 2015 17:13:36 GMT -6
Will,
Yes... the lone tepee was 1.7 miles from the river. This is an extremely important point, though not yet. We can get into the lone tepee business and its location a little later. It is one of the most important things in assessing Benteen's performance at the LBH, but that issue is separate.
Jodak,
I agree with your post regarding Benteen and support. This is one of the great rationalizations some use when the issue of supporting Reno pops up. Like the other suppositions, however, there is no proof other than someone's wishful thinking and a desire to lay more blame on Reno. The name of Benteen never popped up in any conversations overheard by anyone at this time, except apparently Davern, who said at the RCOI, “Colonel Benteen will be on your left and will have the same instructions.” It is interesting no one else heard this and if it is true, that is fine, but Reno-- no one's fool-- had to know Benteen wasn't anywhere around, or would he be any time soon.
Of course, that leaves open one of the interpretations of Cooke's note to Benteen, but the way things were going even that could have been changed.
Personally, I put no stock in the Benteen-on-the-left business simply because that would indicate something of a static battle and I doubt Custer had any such thought in his mind. At this stage of the event-- Custer/Cooke issuing orders to Reno-- it is my belief Custer's interpretation of "support" was as we see it, "direct" support.
Then there is the issue of Cooke and Keogh following Reno... what stock does anyone put in that? Is it significant? Does it point to anything? Is it true? And if so, to what purpose?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|