|
Post by tubman13 on Sept 10, 2015 11:20:31 GMT -6
By the way, some Terry's scouts found a wounded buffalo in the other end of Tullock's, I assume looking for the scout, not sent. I think this was late on the 23rd or early 24th.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 10, 2015 12:38:04 GMT -6
Jodak wrote, " It occurs to me that it is possible that Custer's intent in not sending Herendeen was to force Terry to delay. If you believe in the theory that Custer wanted to fight the battle alone and receive all of the credit/glory for himself, causing Terry to delay as he ascertained the status of Tullock's would fit nicely with that." 1. The Malice theory. LTC Custer showed enormous malice towards his superiors, his peers, and his subordinates 1865-76. He was a scoundrel, with no integrity or honor. But many scoundrels have had success at war. 2. Incompetence. I think a better prism to understand LTC Custer is that he was incompetent at company and field grade command. He was a better than average brigade and division commander in the American Civil War (ACW). Yet he had only a few weeks experience at company grade, and not a single day at field grade. I am amused how the Custer fanboy fanatics ignore his court martial conviction. He should have been dismissed as OTHD from that day. I have to agree with point 2. I have never seen evidence that Custer was malice. If anything he seems to have an over exaggerated since of honor to the point he was intolerant of anyone who didn't meet his standards. As for incompetent, his whole post CW career is full of red flags that he was in over his head. Fanboys remind me of fanfiction writers. They strive to create a flawless hero to fit their own ideals and in the end create a historical fantasy character.
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 11, 2015 10:34:09 GMT -6
I won't reinvent the wheel by reposting my lengthy diatribe on Terry's LOI, but realize that I did a little disservice to Grants correspondence wirh Lee. I focused on the "Your Obedient Servant" signature which is also in the signature of the LOI as scribed by Capt. Smith.
The more important thought is that it was a DEMAND for surrender. I noticed on the other board Tunkasilas remark on this passage (re-posted by Benteeneast/AZ Ranger) about it not being an order therefore irrelevant.
My accountability for emphasizing the less useful aspect of the note. While I think Tunkasila is a pretty good poster I refuse to get bogged down over there. Hope this helps clarify for anyone especially those who follow both boards where the emphasis should have been.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 11, 2015 12:28:18 GMT -6
I won't reinvent the wheel by reposting my lengthy diatribe on Terry's LOI, but realize that I did a little disservice to Grants correspondence wirh Lee. I focused on the "Your Obedient Servant" signature which is also in the signature of the LOI as scribed by Capt. Smith. The more important thought is that it was a DEMAND for surrender. I noticed on the other board Tunkasilas remark on this passage (re-posted by Benteeneast/AZ Ranger) about it not being an order therefore irrelevant. My accountability for emphasizing the less useful aspect of the note. While I think Tunkasila is a pretty good poster I refuse to get bogged down over there. Hope this helps clarify for anyone especially those who follow both boards where the emphasis should have been. Best, David David I agree that many over look the fact that it was an order for surrender. Many are confused by the phrase "Your obedient servant" which was used in the 17th and 18th centuries as a pro forma address. They even used this phrase or one very similar on correspondence dealing with duels! Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 12, 2015 6:25:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 12, 2015 7:06:19 GMT -6
Duly noted! Stepdaughter is getting married in mid-June 2016 but will do my damnedest to get to LBH. Will probably need the break!!
|
|