|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 4, 2015 13:54:33 GMT -6
edavids,
No need to apologize to me for a post. Often times my tongue gets in the way of my eye tooth and I can't see what I am saying.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 4, 2015 16:12:27 GMT -6
LOL Tom. This will teach me about posting from an iPhone instead of a desktop with a nice big 20" screen. Looked at my post with all the spelling errors due to my big fat fingers and my smiley emoticon turning into 4 questions marks at the end. I look like a semi-literate old crank!
The comment about Gen'l Terry was not specifically directed at you and I get the good humor that it was meant to portray. I'll put this out there for board members:
1) What is everyone's opinion of General Terry? Who here considers him an amateur and why? Who would care to critique his career and/or his performance during the 1876 campaign? 2) Did Terry's superiors publish opinions or critiques of his overall performance and at LBH? 3) Did Terry's subordinates publish opinions or critiques of his overall performance and at LBH?
FYI - No I am not a lawyer. I did work with lawyers on the Internet marketing for many years so I have a little bit of empathy.
Best - David
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 4, 2015 16:14:30 GMT -6
I want to also welcome all the newbies!
Hopefully now I have a kid off to school and the other in school, I'll have more time for 'the boards.'
Beth
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 4, 2015 16:50:59 GMT -6
I want to also welcome all the newbies! Hopefully now I have a kid off to school and the other in school, I'll have more time for 'the boards.' Beth Thank you, Beth. To re-phrase a couple of my questions above: I realize Terry was part of the Summer 1876 campaign and not physically present at LBH till 6/27. The more proper question is how would posters critique Terry's performance during the Summer 1876 campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 4, 2015 17:39:10 GMT -6
I suspect that the answer might be that he did the best he could with what he was given.
Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2015 17:54:23 GMT -6
... did any one at any time mention or discuss talking with the Native Americans first, rather than bursting into the village as an attack? Philbrick thinks so, but I would discount anything he has claimed. I think the answer is, Yes. I say that because of the imposed deadline. It was not arbitrary and the agents were tasked with getting the word out. So in that regard, some effort-- however meager-- was made. Personally, I think the army was itching for a fight, so I tend to doubt anyone was unhappy Indians didn't flock back to the rez by the end of January. That is sheer speculation on my part, however, with no substance to back it up. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 4, 2015 17:56:16 GMT -6
Dave, I have found that reading books don't always give you the truth. So many people and historians present their personal views. I have always tried to learn both sides. I have been a history buff for at least 50 of my 72 years. My problem has always been to jump from one era to another. I spent 10 years as a reenactor in the American Revolution, then 12 years in the Civil War. I study the Roman Army for a while then I'am in to Carthage. A recent TV show " Facts vs Fiction about history" sparked my interest regarding Custer and the Little Bighorn. So far what I have read in books and on the Internet still tend to be one sided for the US, giving very little information for the Native Americans. Like all history events, they are a big puzzle and trying to find the pieces on your own can be hard. Thank goodness for this forum. Dan I too have eclectic tastes in history and have been a buff most of my 66 years, especially history regarding the War of 1861-1865. I mentioned the books since you have to study the terrain at Little Big Horn. The late DC mentioned often that it was horrible ground for cavalry and he was right. I would also suggest that you might wish to invest in an excellent study of the battle with very accurate time lines for all the action and parties involved. Fred Wagner, Fred on this board, has written " The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn" a tome that will really be of assistance in your study of this event. There is a thread on this board that can provide additional information about this book. If you are interested in more information regarding the role of the Indians there is a web site, amertribes.proboards.com/, that may assist you. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2015 17:59:11 GMT -6
1) What is everyone's opinion of General Terry? Who here considers him an amateur and why? Who would care to critique his career and/or his performance during the 1876 campaign? My opinion of Terry is a lot better than most. He was a damn fine soldier, though more of a staff soldier than an Indian-war field commander. He gave Custer too free a rein, including his orders of June 22. And if we criticize Custer for failing to heed his scouts, we should condemn Terry for failing to use his. His bungling up, along, and across Tullock's Ridge was a fiasco. I would criticize Terry more for inexperience than I would for incompetence. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 4, 2015 18:22:46 GMT -6
Do you think that it is possible that since Terry was inexperienced in fighting NA that he might have relied a little too heavily on Custer's advice?
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 4, 2015 19:07:24 GMT -6
... did any one at any time mention or discuss talking with the Native Americans first, rather than bursting into the village as an attack? Philbrick thinks so, but I would discount anything he has claimed. I think the answer is, Yes. I say that because of the imposed deadline. It was not arbitrary and the agents were tasked with getting the word out. So in that regard, some effort-- however meager-- was made. Personally, I think the army was itching for a fight, so I tend to doubt anyone was unhappy Indians didn't flock back to the rez by the end of January. That is sheer speculation on my part, however, with no substance to back it up. Best wishes, Fred. Fred Didn't the US government/military issued the deadline in December of 1875 and required the Indians to report by the end of January? Would not the winter weather in the plains have precluded the Indians from reporting even if they were so inclined? I think I read that somewhere but I can't remember where or who made the information public. I hope I am right but it would not be the first mistake I have made regarding this battle and the participants. Regards Dave PS You might ought to re-post your last message on the other board here for Dan and David. It was very informative and they may not see it there.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2015 19:19:20 GMT -6
Didn't the US government/military issued the deadline in December of 1875 and required the Indians to report by the end of January? Would not the winter weather in the plains have precluded the Indians from reporting even if they were so inclined? I would guess the agents were to spread the word and then messengers from the agencies themselves. At one time I thought the same thing, but it appears some sort of reasonable effort was made to get the word out. Who really knows.... Which one? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2015 19:24:40 GMT -6
Do you think that it is possible that since Terry was inexperienced in fighting NA that he might have relied a little too heavily on Custer's advice? I don't know, Beth. Terry was pretty much his own man and while he deferred to Custer in certain matters, he made his pique known on a number of occasions during the campaign. Like I said, I think people underestimate the man. I find nothing radically wrong with the way he conducted the campaign. Again, his errors were more from inexperience than anything else. He was also pretty quick to recognize an error and make the corrections: his errors were more errors of commission than omission. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 4, 2015 19:40:05 GMT -6
Didn't the US government/military issued the deadline in December of 1875 and required the Indians to report by the end of January? Would not the winter weather in the plains have precluded the Indians from reporting even if they were so inclined? I would guess the agents were to spread the word and then messengers from the agencies themselves. At one time I thought the same thing, but it appears some sort of reasonable effort was made to get the word out. Who really knows.... Which one? Best wishes, Fred. Fred I dislike intensely hawking That one Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 4, 2015 23:37:43 GMT -6
Thank you Fred for you always insightful and concise answers. @ Beth - this is where it gets frustrating not to be as well read as others on this board. I think the easy answer as to whether or not Terry gave Custer too much free reign is yes, due solely to the result. I'm more curious as to the "why" Terry may have given GAC the leeway many of us interpret. Was he a wise man who knew his limitations, but not who he should defer to? Sheridan was a Custer mentor; did he infer to Terry that he should let Custer "do his thing"? Did Custer figuratively thumb his nose at Terry from afar and do what he damn well pleased?
From reviewing other posts, it seemed that Terry was aware that there was the chance his force could be defeated by vastly superior NA numbers. He politely worded what he wanted Custer to do but with caveats thrown in. This was also a very polite time. I believe Gen'l Grant believe a demand for surrender to Gen'l R.E. Lee with the close "your obedient servant". There was CYA but also clear written instructions. I don't think the man had blinders on going into this. My statements are not as specific as I'd like to be but hopefully these are thoughts worth considering.
Best, David
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 5, 2015 4:15:27 GMT -6
All, As an aside, Crook did not think much of Terry as a field commander and broke away from him as soon as he could. Also, I think Crook did not like being with a senior officer looking over his shoulder.
Regards, Tom
|
|