|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 4, 2016 20:01:40 GMT -6
DucemusMonster Major - unmasked According to Greg Michno, those who denigrate Maj. Marcus A. Reno to elevate George A. Custer are not providing true insight and are doing us a disservice. Reason backed by evidence should be our guides. When we stray from those tenets, our history suffers for it. We shall come to back to that after considering this www.historynet.com/misrepresented-monster-major-marcus-reno.htm sad piffle. Apparently, Reno’s detractors had seemingly gotten their wish. They had broken Reno and eventually tainted nearly everyone’s opinion of him. Fred Whittaker and Tom Rosser in particular, who had not been at the Little Bighorn, seemed to revel in publicly excoriating Reno, as if by destroying him could they elevate their hero, Custer. It worked. Today, courtesy of this ilk, the conspiracies are everywhere now to reconstitute dereliction that was Reno. What is done in his regard is a staggering disregard of honesty, veracity, respect for the fallen and for values truly held dear. As Michno entirely understands, the accusations raised against Reno stemmed from analytical study of times and distance as available in 1876. Little of worth or value which adds to the basics has emerged since, other than quite unfortunate red herrings tossed forth during the Inquiry demanded by Reno to prevent a request that the Government investigate the battle. We come back to reason backed by evidence as the guide to history. On the 27th June, 1876, on Reno Hill after lifting the siege and rescuing the dogged survivors and wounded of 7th Cavalry and witnessing the tear filled eyes and stained cheeks of Reno, Terry was led to believe the following - copied directly, word for word, from his report of events forwarded eventually to P.H. Sherman. ' Soon this united force was nearly surrounded by Indians, many of whom armed with rifles, occupied positions which commanded the ground held by the cavalry, ground from which there was no escape. Rifle-pits were dug, and the fight was maintained, though with heavy loss, from about half past 2 o'clock of the 25th till 6 o'clock of the 26th, when the Indians withdrew from the valley, taking with them their village.Anyone, and certainly specialist research historians, will be entirely familiar with the true shape of events as outlined by Frederick Whittaker in his outrage. Be that as it may and story as it was and is - the simple truth is that those tear smudged cheeks and weeping eyes of Marcus A. Reno, stood before his commander on his hill flanking the Little Bighorn river - gave lie to his failings and the disaster which he brought about. Cold, calm, bloody minded shirking of truth to avoid the consequences of his causing what what was and remains a national disaster of his disgrace. Tough but there it is. A very sad comment, is Marcus A. Reno redeemed. Why would people do this? Their list is venerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 4, 2016 21:25:15 GMT -6
DucemusMonster Major - unmasked According to Greg Michno, those who denigrate Maj. Marcus A. Reno to elevate George A. Custer are not providing true insight and are doing us a disservice. Reason backed by evidence should be our guides. When we stray from those tenets, our history suffers for it. We shall come to back to that after considering this www.historynet.com/misrepresented-monster-major-marcus-reno.htm sad piffle. Apparently, Reno’s detractors had seemingly gotten their wish. They had broken Reno and eventually tainted nearly everyone’s opinion of him. Fred Whittaker and Tom Rosser in particular, who had not been at the Little Bighorn, seemed to revel in publicly excoriating Reno, as if by destroying him could they elevate their hero, Custer. It worked. Today, courtesy of this ilk, the conspiracies are everywhere now to reconstitute dereliction that was Reno. What is done in his regard is a staggering disregard of honesty, veracity, respect for the fallen and for values truly held dear. As Michno entirely understands, the accusations raised against Reno stemmed from analytical study of times and distance as available in 1876. Little of worth or value which adds to the basics has emerged since, other than quite unfortunate red herrings tossed forth during the Inquiry demanded by Reno to prevent a request that the Government investigate the battle. We come back to reason backed by evidence as the guide to history. On the 27th June, 1876, on Reno Hill after lifting the siege and rescuing the dogged survivors and wounded of 7th Cavalry and witnessing the tear filled eyes and stained cheeks of Reno, Terry was led to believe the following - copied directly, word for word, from his report of events forwarded eventually to P.H. Sherman. ' Soon this united force was nearly surrounded by Indians, many of whom armed with rifles, occupied positions which commanded the ground held by the cavalry, ground from which there was no escape. Rifle-pits were dug, and the fight was maintained, though with heavy loss, from about half past 2 o'clock of the 25th till 6 o'clock of the 26th, when the Indians withdrew from the valley, taking with them their village.Anyone, and certainly specialist research historians, will be entirely familiar with the true shape of events as outlined by Frederick Whittaker in his outrage. Be that as it may and story as it was and is - the simple truth is that those tear smudged cheeks and weeping eyes of Marcus A. Reno, stood before his commander on his hill flanking the Little Bighorn river - gave lie to his failings and the disaster which he brought about. Cold, calm, bloody minded shirking of truth to avoid the consequences of his causing what what was and remains a national disaster of his disgrace. Tough but there it is. A very sad comment, is Marcus A. Reno redeemed. Why would people do this? Their list is venerable.
(Yawn) - I get it; you can't stand Reno who has been in his grave since 1889 and actually did serve his country well until very arguably that fateful afternoon of June 25, 1876. Regardless of your opinion of the man, he did serve his country to a much greater extent than most people who denigrate the man, albeit paid a heavy price, deserved or undeserved in the end. "True shape of events as outlined by Fred Whittaker"  ?? Was Whittaker at the Battle of the Little Bighorn or did he see an opportunity to make a name for himself to sell more dime novels (which he evidently was very good at)! Best, David |
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 5, 2016 5:30:37 GMT -6
The only thing above that brings a tear to my is the fact that a relatively intelligent individual, HR, has to keep bringing up Whittaker as a source. It is also sad that HR's brain seems to be stuck in neutral, with this subject and continues to harp on it. One would think with all the research he seems to do you would think he could bring more to the table. I know you are a Rini puppy from the same litter, but give it a rest.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Jan 5, 2016 7:31:07 GMT -6
Have you noticed that posters with agendas often take forever to say nothing? Just paragraph after paragraph that spout the same old crap? Posters who add pertinent stuff to a discussion usually do so pretty quickly.
HR you have the right to hate whomever you choose but a man who served his country and been dead for 127 years? A dime novelist and angry/bitter/grieving wife his primary accusers?
I am done with this nonsensical thread.
Best,
David
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 5, 2016 7:55:52 GMT -6
I am done with this nonsensical thread. David, He has been doing this for years. Dark Cloud used to take his pants down and whip him mercilessly. He puts up more nonsensical drivel than any other ten posters (including myself!!). His conclusions border on the insane and now it seems he has latched onto this "let's-all-hate-Reno" stuff. Just skip through it: that is what I do... although I will admit, it is like most of these long-winded diatribes: I look for my name... just so it isn't used in "vain" or claiming I said something I didn't. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 5, 2016 7:57:48 GMT -6
One would think with all the research he seems to do you would think he could bring more to the table. I do not think he reads half the junk he posts. Where would anyone get the time? Personally, I think he is a frustrated graphic artist. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 5, 2016 16:35:38 GMT -6
DucemusThere seems to be some confusion as to the topic under discussion. Michno states in his article, 'Reason backed by evidence should be our guides. When we stray from those tenets, our history suffers for it.' He then examples exactly the trait he damns by ignoring the basic and most heinous failings of Reno. The discussion is about history and those who abuse its presentation. Historians. Is Michno, for example, a historian or a pulp history writer. I've pulled the knee jerking into a seperate post for tidyness sake, now on with the debate. Please. I am done with this nonsensical thread. David, He has been doing this for years. Dark Cloud used to take his pants down and whip him mercilessly. He puts up more nonsensical drivel than any other ten posters (including myself!!). His conclusions border on the insane and now it seems he has latched onto this "let's-all-hate-Reno" stuff. Just skip through it: that is what I do... although I will admit, it is like most of these long-winded diatribes: I love for my name... just so it isn't used in "vain" or claiming I said something I didn't. Best wishes, Fred. fred, you know that I am a fan of Reno's. In a dark, sordid and very smirking way. If we are going to get hung up on his failings then it would be better done in a seperate topic. He was a real rat!
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 5, 2016 17:01:47 GMT -6
Ducemus
Ducemus
Evidence of reprehensible nature and intent.
Excerpted as follows from report to accompany bill S.2190, submitted by MR. HARRISON, from the Committee on Military Affairs, of 47th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION SENATE REPORT No. 926 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. January 16, 1883. -- Ordered to be printed. is evidence indicating propensity to falsify and modify truth and its presentation to his own damned self interests and falsehoods.
ADDITIONAL CHARGE. -- "Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman."
Specification. -- "In that Maj. Marcus A. Reno, Seventh Regiment of Cavalry, having had charges preferred against him for 'conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,' and a general court-martial having been ordered for his trial upon said charges, did interview Eliza Galloway, a colored servant in the employment of Dr. T.B. Davis, acting assistant surgeon, U.S.A., at Fort Abercrombie, Dakota, for the purpose of obtaining testimony for his defense, and, when told by her that she could not furnish any testimony favorable to his case, did say in substance to the said Eliza Galloway that he would pay her any amount of money if she would testify for him, or say anything that would help him; thereby intending to bribe the said Eliza Galloway to testify falsely, at the same time cautioning the said Eliza Galloway not to say anything about what he, Reno, had said to her. This at Fort Abercrombie, Dakota, on or about the 25th of February, 1877."
To which charges and specifications, the accused, Maj. Marcus A. Reno, Seventh Cavalry, pleaded "Not Guilty."
He was subsequently ordered by sentence to be dismissed from the military service of the United States. Major Reno's conduct towards the wife of an absent officer, and in using the whole force of his power as commanding officer of the post to gratify his resentment against her, cannot be too strongly condemned.
No doubt of a corrupt core and manipulative nature with Reno, so why pretend that he is worthy of beneficial history. Why would Michno disregard evidence to present unreasoned codswallop?
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 6, 2016 7:37:55 GMT -6
History and histiorians - starting with Michno, about whom I am certain that you hold opinion. Yes, I hold an opinion about Michno. It is very favorable, even though I do not always agree with him (... so what's new, right?). My biggest issue with Michno is my belief he does not always follow through with his work. As a researcher and writer, I think he is top-flight and I use a lot of his work in my own. He also writes in a free-and-easy style which I like. I do not place him in my "Elite Eight," but he knows his stuff. Two thumbs up. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 6, 2016 17:51:33 GMT -6
Ducemus
Not a bad critique, so, how can the discrepancy between Terry's given understanding of events of the battle, as reported to him by Reno on the 27th, be ignored in what is a blatant disregard.
This is not digging at Reno, per se; there is a significant discrenpancy between what Terry was told and the actual - in what ever way it is considered. The expedition commander was misled as to the nature of events in such fashion that he was given an entirely false consideration of enemy strength. They were swarming all over Reno Hill whilst Custer's command were wiped out. This is no little thing and those wishing or tempted to brush it under a rock, really should not. This information did not come from Benteen. It did not come from Gibson. It was given to Terry by Reno in utter falsehood and just as I know it, Michno does as well.
|
|
?? Was Whittaker at the Battle of the Little Bighorn or did he see an opportunity to make a name for himself to sell more dime novels (which he evidently was very good at)! 
Regards. History and histiorians - starting with Michno, about whom I am certain that you hold opinion.