White Man Runs Him statements:

[crzhrs]

Some interesting comments by White Man Runs Him that I dug up over the weekend. What do you think?

White Man Runs Him told Gen. Hugh Scott that he would not have split the command as Custer did. Custer was reckless. Instead of Custer going ahead and starting at the same time as Reno, Custer held back and did not start until he SAW Reno fighting. That was poor generalship. I have been with other officers and they attacked differently than Custer. It did not look right. It was as if Custer said Reno you go ahead and let them whip you and then I will go ahead and they will whip me. Custer saw Reno’s fight from the bluffs. Custer believed Reno’s command was all killed because they were retreating to the bluffs. I know for sure Custer went right to the river. I saw him go that far. Custer tried crossing the river at the mouth of MTC but was unable to do so. That was the last I saw Custer.

In 1906 WMRH told Edward Curtis (anthropologist/photographer) that Custer could see most of the village from Weir Pt. and Custer and a number of officers were watching the events in the valley. They saw Reno’s rout and WMRH chastised Custer by saying “why don’t you cross the river and fight?” Custer said, “It’s early yet and there’s plenty of time to fight, let them fight, our turn will come.” Only after Reno had started to run did Custer depart from Weir Pt.

When Custer reached 200 yards from the river they started getting fired on by the Sioux on opposite bank. Men dismounted and opened fire, the rest of the command stretched back out of site. Indians were crossing the river.

Boyer said to leave. We looked back and saw Custers’ men moving toward LSH. When we got back to other soldiers (Weir Advance) we could see Custer still fighting.

WMRH told Camp in 1910 Custer sat on the bluff and saw Reno’s fight. Sioux began crossing at Ford B and below and soon were getting on all sides of Custer. There was much excitement among the soldiers.

WMRH told three people pretty much the same story spread over several years. Scott gave no opinion, Camp thought it was preposterous, but Curtis believed it and partition President Teddy Roosevelt to open an investigation (especially about Custer abandoning Reno). Roosevelt said too many years had gone by and it would not be good for the country to open up old wounds and try to dishonor Custer.

Curtis never again pursued WMRH’s story and put his papers away. It was only years later that his son gave them to Henry Viola who published them in his LITTLE BIG HORN REMEMBERED.

Did WMRH tell the truth?

[Tony]

crz---I sincerly doubt Custer sat and watched Reno retreat, and the proff is in Martini's ride back to Benteen. If Custer sat and watched and then left,-- Martini would have rode right into Reno on Reno Hill--and we all know that did not happen. Martini was sent back after Weir Hill and passed back over Reno Hill way before Reno retreted. Matter of fact, Martini said that he saw Reno still fighting in the valley when he reached the area of Reno Hill.

[George Armstrong Custer]

crzhrs,
I have no doubt whatsoever that WMRH was adept at promoting and inflating his own actions and importance to white's in the years following the battle. To read WMRH's accounts, Custer did ok when he followed WMRH's tactical advice but ended disastrously when he did not. WMRH should have restricted his immodesty to a field where he was one of the experts, and on which Custer would have given weight to his opinion - that of guiding the command through territory familiar to the Crow tribe. Tony has concisely demonstrated how easy it is to expose WMRH's self-aggrandizement over the years on his actions and prescient wisdom on June 25 for what it is. It's a pity that the fact that WMRH undoubtedly told tall tales has led to his real field of expertise being questioned by some researchers. (Though as I've noted elsewhere, how many LBH survivors - white or red - didn't embellish their personal roles in the affair to a greater or lesser degree?)

Ciao,
GAC

[elisabeth]

What "other officers" had WMRH seen attacking? That might be a way of testing his statement.

[crzhrs]

GAC:

Then how do we tell when WMRH is telling the truth? Do we pick & choose what to believe when it suits our point-of-view, or do we say as Camp does it was "preposterous".

As for Custer watching Reno's fight: We have testimony from Reno's men that he was recognized on a bluff. But how long was Custer there? Once Reno's men were in the timber their view may have been blocked and were probably more concerned with Indians that looking for Custer.

WMRH does say when they left Custer they ran into the Weir Advance and watched Custer fighting Indians, which is what several soldiers said.

But why would WMRH tell the same story to at least three different people spread out over several years? A liar has trouble remembering lies, but not someone who tells the truth?

I realize many question WMRH but that may be because they do not want to accept the unacceptable: Custer watched Reno's fight and retreat rather than assisting him and headed north to find another point of attack.

Elisabeth:

WMRH did not name the officers, just officers sitting and watching Reno's fight.

WMRH's story to Curtis is in LITTLE BIGHORN REMEMBERED (Viola) and has many more details. Curtis believed him and thought it was worthy of more investigation but Roosevelt declined.

[elisabeth]

crzhrs ... hmmm ... and it's interesting that he should pick such an unpopular story to tell. If he were looking for fame and fortune, he'd have done better with a story people wanted to hear. (Like Curley.) As it is, Curtis is the first person he finds who'll take him seriously. It takes some determination to stick with a story no-one likes ...

Roosevelt may have been concerned not only about dishonouring Custer (after all, he had a war on his hands, and needed lots of patriotic fervour flying around) but also about the risk of forcing a re-examination of the RCOI verdict. Because WMRH's statement gives the lie to the Reno-Benteen story that it was all over, nothing we could have done, etc. Several RCOI participants -- e.g. Godfrey, Edgerly -- were by now high-ranking officers. It would have been one hell of a can of worms to open!

[P.S. Sorry, I was unclear; I meant the officers he mentioned in the first para, the ones he'd seen before LBH and by whose methods of attack he was judging Custer's. Just wondering what other campaigns he'd been on before this one.]

[Tony]

crz--lets take a look at WMRH's statement--he asserts that when they left Custer they ran into the Weir advance. They had just left Custer and as per WMRH, Custer was heading to Calhoun Hill. WMRH leaves and meets the Weir Advance, and sees Custer still fighting. That would mean that the Weir advance came when Custer was just reaching Calhoun Hill (begining of the fight). All accounts from the soldiers stated that Weir didn't advance until about an hour after they heard the firing coming from the Custer battlefield. WMRH's account has the Weir advance coming much too soon. He states that he was with Boyer at that time. If so, then how did Boyer get to Custer after Custer retreated to Calhoun Hill. Curley claimes that Boyer left the bluffs and met Custer as he was coming down MTC---way before Custer retreats to Calhoun Hill. Notwithstanding the fact that Martini's ride defenately proves that WMRH's account could not have possibly been correct. Nothing in his account fits.

[crzhrs]

Elisabeth:

I don't believe he mentioned the other officers he had been on campaigns with . . . I will double check (WMRH's story to Scott is in THE CUSTER MYTH, page 12-15?)

Yes . . . if TR decided to re-open an investigation of the LBH it could have been disasterous. However, two of the major players, Benteen and Reno were dead . . . and it is their testimony that most question. Godfrey, Edgerly, Varnum and several others were still alive and it would have been interesting to hear them 30 years after the battle. Of course that's a long time, and one of the issues TR had was what would the years do to one's memories.

While most Indians were reluctant to speak the truth out of fear of retribution (mostly the Sioux/Cheyenne) WMRH apparently had no qualms about speaking his mind. Yes . . . to continue his story of Custer knowing Reno's command had been routed was not PC even then, but he stuck with it. And the Weir Advance watching Custer fighting Indians was not the way soldiers put it. They said it was the finishing off of Custer they witnessed. However, did WMRH mean that . . . or did they actually see Custer's command still holding out and fighting?

[elisabeth]

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it. If they saw more than they said -- well, it'd explain a lot of the shiftiness in RCOI and other testimony. (As well as resolving some of the timing issues.) My instinct is that perhaps they did. But instinct's a long way from proof, of course!

I'm still in two minds about WMRH. The Curtis story is pretty extreme and sensational; his versions to Scott are a bit less condemnatory. The criticisms on p. 16 of "The Custer Myth", which you quoted in your first para of testimony in your original message, are strong stuff -- but on p. 13 he puts it a bit differently, saying Custer "did not leave that place [the ridge] until Reno had started skirmishing". Very different from Custer waiting till Reno was in full retreat. It still leaves Custer open to WMRH's criticisms about not going in right away, but is capable of rational explanation, e.g. Custer satisfying himself that the upper end of the village was fully engaged. So I don't know.

True, TR probably was concerned about distortion of memory over time -- which is one of the problems we have, of course, with Camp/Curtis/etc coming so late into the game. The nearest to contemporaneous testimony we've got is the wretched RCOI, and we all know how much we trust that! Agreed that Reno and Benteen were the major players in that ... but reopening it would surely expose some living serving officers to the suspicion of perjury ... so one can quite understand why TR would avoid that even if he gave any credence to WMRH. (Plus Libbie was still around to cause trouble.) His decision to let sleeping dogs lie is understandable. More surprising, perhaps, that Curtis didn't push it. Was he just a naturally aquiescent person? Or do you think he could have had doubts himself?

[crzhrs]

Not sure why Curtis didn't push the info he received. I will have to check later when I have the book on hand.

I do know that Curtis was very interested in Native American culture and was one of the first anthroplogists to devote study to the culture. He spent much time studying the Northwest Coastal Indians and his photos are priceless. He did some early film on some of their ceremonies which I have seen. He may have even gone "Indian" for a time.

His photographic/anthropologic work is first class . . . but he may have felt TR was right and dropped it. I'll have to look further though.

[crzhrs]

A little more on the Curtis/WMRH story:

In 1908, four surviving Custer scouts returned to Little Bighorn with Edward S. Curtis, a famed scholar-photographer on Indian culture. Curtis died in 1925, and his unpublished papers were rediscovered in 1988 by a son, then 95, who sent them to the Smithsonian. Based on those writings, the Smithsonian's curator emeritus of military history, James Hutchins, contributes a chapter to Viola's book. He adds new details to the familiar story of how Custer divided his force into three parts and ordered his second-in- command, Major Marcus Reno, to attack the Indian encampment. The Crow scouts criticized Custer for ignoring their warnings that the Sioux- Cheyenne enemy were too numerous and for failing to ride to Reno's aid. When the scouts donned tribal regalia, to die as Indians, Custer let them go.

As they joined Reno, according to White Man Runs Him, "we looked back and saw Custer still fighting," on a distant slope to the north. They did not know until later that the sun had set for 'Son Of The Morning Star'. Three Arikara scouts with Reno were killed, but the Crows survived. Most continued to serve with the military. While Custer was acclaimed a fallen hero, Reno was publicly vilified for his actions at Little Bighorn. Hutchins says Curtis believed the Crows' account of Custer's action but took the advice of his friend President Theodore Roosevelt not to publish a story that "makes Custer out both a traitor and a fool."

"Thirty years after the event it is necessary to be exceedingly cautious about relying on the memory of any man, Indian or white," Roosevelt wrote. "Such a space of time is a great breeder of myths."

[George Armstrong Custer]

crzhrs said:

GAC:

Then how do we tell when WMRH is telling the truth? Do we pick & choose what to believe when it suits our point-of-view, or do we say as Camp does it was "preposterous".

Crzhrs,
What we do is examine what we know of what WMRH actually did in comparison to what he says he did. We do this by looking for corroboration. For instance, we know the Crow's had long-term knowledge of the country they were guiding Custer through - Varnum, for example, confirms this in his later statements. We have contemporary evidence from 1876, too, regarding WMRH and his fellow Crow's abilities in these areas: Custer demonstrated his personal faith in the Crow's ability as guides and in their knowledge of the terrain - Varnum testifies to Custer visiting the Crow bivouac on the evening of June 24th and "had a long talk with the Crow scouts." It was only later that Custer called Varnum over and, on the basis of what the Crow's had told him, described the Crow's Nest and assigned Varnum to return there with the Crow's for intelligence-gathering purposes. Later still, Custer again demonstrated his faith in the abilities of the Crow's when he accepted their word on the existence of the main hostile encampment even though he couldn't see it himself. Therefore, for these aspects of WMRH's testimony - linked to his topographical and orienteering skills - I would argue that we have sufficient corroboration to accept his statements.

Opposed to this, we have the examples of WMRH stating that he gave Custer tactical advice on the battlefield (starting at the Crow's Nest, in fact) which Custer rejected at his peril. Apart from the fact that nothing we know of WMRH's background prior to 1876 would have qualified him to talk of 'poor generalship' on Custer's part - as opposed to what we do know of the Crow's knowledge of the topography and Custer's faith in them - it quite simply was not WMRH's function, and my understanding of Custer's command style leads me to doubt he would have entertained WMRH in such a role for a moment! Added to this, Tony has demonstrated how readily WMRH's later foray's into a tactical dissection of the LBH, and his self-styled role as some kind of 'special advisor' to Custer can be discredited.

That, I believe, is how we can differentiate between the various aspects of WMRH's testimony.

Ciao,
GAC

[crzhrs]

One thing I was not aware of is that WMRH was only 18 (born 1858) when he scouted for Custer. Curly was very young also . . . why would Custer rely on and trust such young Indians? It was their advice that convinced Custer that the village had been spotted, the command had been discovered, and to attack before the Sioux/Cheyenne attacked first.

[elisabeth]

The other guys were older ... which supports GAC's contention that WMRH was just self-aggrandising his role. Chances are, no-one listened to a word he said!

Still, I hesitate to dismiss him out of hand. Two things: (1) if WMRH meant (as indeed he says) that Custer waited until Reno had started fighting (one version) or until Reno had started skirmishing, i.e. had gone into skirmish line (another), this might still just about make it possible for Martini to do his ride before Reno actually retreated up the bluffs -- which would overcome Tony's objection. And (2) there's the message to Benteen. It could be read as Custer assuming Reno's taking care of himself, and that Benteen can just let him get on with it and press on to Custer; but it could equally be read as Custer having dismissed Reno completely as a factor -- assuming he's whipped, shrugging his shoulders, and calling Benteen and the packs to him. An ugly interpretation ... but not impossible?

[Tony]

Elizabeth---my objection was to Custer sitting and waiting on Weir until Reno retreated to the bluffs---I think we all can determin from Martini's ride alone that that was impossible. I feel it was possible for Custer to see Reno in skirmish, but even that is questionable. Let's see what we have:
We know that Custer saw Reno "charging" to the village from Reno Hill area (a la Kanipe and Martini). Now after Kanipe leaves, Martini stated that Custer did not go to Weir Hill, but only the scouts did. If that was fact, then Custer never saw Reno other than his charge to the village and nothing more. Derudio stated that he saw Custer and Cook just North of Reno Hill---and that was just as Reno was retreating to the timber, or just after (I'm not sure which). If that was fact, then Custer knew that Reno retreated to the timber, but nothing more. If we believe Derudio, then that does not leave time for Custer to advance to MTC and send Martini back ( i.e. Martini stated that he saw Reno still in skirmish on his ride back--I don't think that meant in the timber, for it would be difficult to see troopers in a thick timber from a bluff). Reno was only in the timber for approx. 10 minutes before retreating--could that leave enough time for Martini to get to MTC with Custer, get his orders (of which he stated it took about 10 minutes for Cook to write and the command to pass them), and reach Reno Hill before Reno retreated?
I feel that Custer never knew that Reno retreated to the bluffs, and he certainly did not sit and watch Reno retreat to Reno Hill!!