|
Post by Beth on Mar 13, 2016 16:05:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Mar 13, 2016 16:47:39 GMT -6
Beth,
Fine article, thank you for posting it. They did however leave out 2 of the more important facts.
1...Knipe never said that Tom Custer sent him until after Tom was dead.
2...According to both Mathey and McDougal Knipe never delivered a message to them.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 13, 2016 18:49:13 GMT -6
This article was rather interesting.
Aside from gumming up the description of the battle and how Custer fought it-- as well as the casualties-- I have no clue who this writer is and while he states, "... Wagner told me," I never did any such thing. I have no idea who he is and have never heard of his name. I will say this, however. That quote of mine is about as accurate, to the word, as I can remember. I wonder if it is something I wrote on these boards? I also do not remember using that quote in referencing anything John Koster said or wrote.
Interesting...
Thanks, Beth.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Mar 13, 2016 21:26:19 GMT -6
Hi everyone,
I have a theory about Kanipe and I suppose this is a good place to share it. I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks of it.
As a former enlisted man (USMC) , I can attest that it is very common for enlisted men to be sent off on errands without fully appreciating the significance of what they have been asked to do. This occurs because the officer or NCO sending them on the errand doesn't bother to explain to them why their errand is important. It is often felt that a errand runner doesn't need to know everything; he just needs to do what he's been told. There simply isn't the time or need to explain to every private or corporal the commander's innermost thoughts.
That is what I think happened to Kanipe. He was told to do something, but nobody bothered to tell him how his errand fit in the overall picture. And a few hours later, everyone capable of explaining what Kanipe's mission was about were all dead. So, it's kind of unfair to blame Kanipe for being unable to explain Custer's plans and how his mission furthered those plans.
Does this mean that that Custer's intentions for Kanipe can never be discovered? Not necessarily. I believe they can be inferred from things that we already know. Here's what I believe happened:
When Custer turned away from Reno's advance and climbed up onto the bluffs, he was probably at that moment unsure of whether he would continue in that direction or return to follow Reno into the valley. I conjecture that once he made the decision not to follow Reno into the valley he ordered that a messenger (Kanipe) be sent to inform the pack train of this deviation. Why? Because if he had not, the pack train would have eventually discovered the divergence of Custer and Reno's trails and been unsure of which trail to follow. Surely Custer at this point would not have wanted the pack train to follow Reno's trail because it would take them to the river, where it would have probably had considerable difficulty crossing, and would have been quite vulnerable to attack.
So Custer ordered that word be sent to have the packs follow his trail up onto the bluffs. Tom Custer turned around, saw Kanipe and said "Go back and get the packs, tell them to cut straight across country, forget the main trail, come up here." Kanipe then rode off, ran into Benteen, and said "They want the packs brought up". For what else could he say? There was no context to the order he was given.
In this way, I find Kanipe's story believable. We can infer from it that this was the precise moment that Custer had decided to to stay east of the river instead of returning to follow Reno into the valley.
Thanks,
Michael
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 13, 2016 21:53:23 GMT -6
Michael,
Before anyone can convince me Kanipe's "mission" was legitimate, the following need to be addressed satisfactorily. So far, no one has been able to do it. I would be interested in what you say or if you can respond to these.
1. There was no specific reason for anyone to order the packs to hurry. Custer had not fired a single shot; he had not yet seen Reno in the valley; and nothing had changed from the moment he crossed the divide to this point.
2. The five-company command was short of NCOs. C Company had only four of its five authorized line-sergeants and three of its four corporals, and one of the sergeants—Hanley—was back with the packs, leaving only three, plus the first sergeant. Why send an NCO to do the problematic task of “speeding up” the pack train, especially when less important personnel were readily available?
3. Each of the three legitimate messengers we know were sent back—Voss, Sharrow, and Martini—all had instructions to return to the main column. Why didn’t Kanipe at least make the effort? When Kanipe left the column there was no specific activity going on, i. e., Custer had not viewed the valley, there was no known Indian presence on the east side of the river, etc.
4. Kanipe was not an orderly or on SD. Custer had Hughes, Martini, and Dose for those jobs. Since Martini would have been the least valuable—because of the language problem—why not send him on the mundane task? Why yank someone arbitrarily out of a line company? That was not Custer’s M. O.
5. Custer knew the route the packs were taking. He knew the difficulty in “speeding” them along. He knew they would have to travel all the way into the flats of Reno Creek before they could cut cross-country, the white bluffs along the route preventing any early change of direction. Why send a messenger to iterate the obvious?
6. Why not send Voss? He had done so before and he had plenty of trumpeters with him already… and he knew Voss would be reliable….
7. Kanipe professed to have a message for the packs. If that were the case, why didn’t he deliver it? Both McDougall and Mathey said no one ever came back with any message from any of the Custers. And the recommendation letter McDougall wrote for Kanipe in the mid-1890s is not a valid argument. Twenty years had passed and McDougall may have been simply doing a favor for an old regimental comrade.
8. Where did Kanipe go after the message was supposedly delivered? One of the civilian packers saw him; heard him, in fact, say to move along smartly—or some such commentary—but then what? We hear nothing—from Kanipe or anyone else—of his “exploits” after that, other than policing-up duty and body identifying after the fighting was over.
9. His dropping out could have been easily explained to either George or Tom Custer: his horse gave out—fifteen others did, as well—and as a good NCO he took it upon himself to do something useful and hurry the packs along knowing they would be needed.
10. Kanipe never told anyone who sent him back until after it was known the Custer boys were wiped out, and then suddenly it was Tom who told him to go back to the packs.
11. This was contained in the Windolph book, I Fought with Custer, p. 82. In a 1903 article published in the magazine of the Historical Society of Montana, written by Kanipe, he claimed by the time the Custer command had reached the top of the bluffs, they were charging at full speed. At the sight of the village men began to cheer and some horses became so excited the men couldn’t hold them in ranks. Custer said, “Hold your horses in, boys, there are plenty of them down there for us all.” Kanipe said Tom Custer gave him the order for the packs. He also told Kanipe if he saw Benteen to tell him to hurry. In interviews with Walter Mason Camp on June 16 – 17, 1908, Kanipe said Custer’s men went at a trot and a gallop all the way up the bluffs and when they saw Reno’s command charging, Custer’s men began yelling, urging their horses on at a breakneck speed, in a wild run. Many men actually got ahead of Custer and this was when he said, “Hold your horses, boys; there are Indians enough down there for all of us.” Then, Kanipe wrote a letter to Camp, dated July 20, 1908, at Marion, NC, that Custer turned a sharp right after seeing 50 to 100 Indians on the bluff. He claimed Custer never left the command, but rode right in front the whole distance until Kanipe was ordered back. “When the command got up on the bluff where the Indians were supposed to have been seen we could see across the valley, see Reno, and his three companies, about 35 Indian scouts, going right to the Indian camps. We could see the Indian camp, plainly” (Hammer, Custer in ’76, pp. 92 and 94). Based on Kanipe’s own words and Martini’s testimony at the RCOI, all this would have happened in the vicinity of 3,411, and within a 16-minute time-span. It would have been a couple minutes later when Kanipe was supposedly sent back, making the time differential between the two messages only about 13 minutes. What happened in that short span that would have precipitated a double message?
12. The most damning evidence lies in a careful timing analysis, using other related and near-by events to corroborate the data. These data show us Kanipe moved at a speed of only 3 MPH, and even Martini—with a wounded horse—moved faster than that. Where was the so-called urgency?
13. When Kanipe supposedly received these orders to hurry the packs, the column was just approaching the beginning of Cedar Coulee. Tom Custer, as the titular A-d-C, rode point with his brother, George. Kanipe, in C Company, was the last company in the column. Why would Tom Custer ride all the way back to the end of the column to pick out a sergeant from C?
Number 9 may be the kicker. This is the answer to the rather obvious question of Kanipe not knowing the Custers would be killed. How would you respond to it?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 14, 2016 5:00:04 GMT -6
Fred, Somebody got a peek at your binder, came up with the quote. Don't let it out of your hands again! Just kidding!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 14, 2016 6:32:31 GMT -6
Somebody got a peek at your binder, came up with the quote. Don't let it out of your hands again! Just kidding! Tom, It raises an interesting question to me. I recall-- very well-- making that statement... I would assume, verbatim. Yet the article reads as though the writer spoke directly to me, which is not the case. That does not change the context of what he wrote except I do not recall-- at all!!-- making that comment as any sort of answer or rebuttal or even in context to something John Koster said or wrote. So I guess the question arises, is there some sort of ethics issue here? To me, it is no big deal, but it is a bit misleading I guess. I also find it very interesting the writer contacted Lee Noyes of the CBHMA and Noyes actually recommended me as someone to quote. Notes-- willingly or not; knowingly or not-- has really stuck it in my ear on more than one occasion: two occasions as a matter of fact and each involving one of my books. And it appears Art Unger-- who I do not know and have never met-- and I are the only two guys around who doubt the veracity of Kanipe's tale... in print. I am curious to know where that quote of mine appeared. I do not recall... I checked the books and several articles, but cannot find it. I also checked the old Kanipe thread here, but did not see it. It had to have been written-- unless someone was taping me!!!... imagine!!!!!... while I was in some sort of drunken stupor. Oh, well. I guess one day, like everything else, I will stumble over it. My buddies at the LBH all talk about that binder of mine, and now you. It's becoming "famous." By the way, I am chugging through that book of yours. Some good stuff in there. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 14, 2016 14:22:19 GMT -6
Is your famous "binder" full of women? Just asking...! No... but it does need a bit of updating. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 14, 2016 15:23:17 GMT -6
This article was rather interesting. Aside from gumming up the description of the battle and how Custer fought it-- as well as the casualties-- I have no clue who this writer is and while he states, "... Wagner told me," I never did any such thing. I have no idea who he is and have never heard of his name. I will say this, however. That quote of mine is about as accurate, to the word, as I can remember. I wonder if it is something I wrote on these boards? I also do not remember using that quote in referencing anything John Koster said or wrote. Interesting... Thanks, Beth. Best wishes, Fred. Fred The price of fame and being a published author! At least you were quoted accurately or so you think. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 14, 2016 16:03:30 GMT -6
The price of fame and being a published author! At least you were quoted accurately or so you think. Hey, Dave, don't get me wrong. I am not complaining, not at all. It was very kind of the writer to mention my name and the quote is accurate enough that I would stand by it and the writer's use of it. It is perfectly done, as far as I am concerned. I am only befuddled as to where he got it, and his use of the term, "... Wagner told me." The quote is very much mine, but how, when, and where did I " tell" him? I just do not recall. Is he a member of these boards and picked it off of here? I couldn't find the quote anywhere... but again, I remember saying it... or writing it, is more likely. Oftentimes we use that sort of phraseology in describing correspondence, when in actuality we did not speak... verbally. This is more curiosity than anything. And I would certainly not criticize the man for his word usage. Believe me, I am flattered. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Mar 14, 2016 18:20:58 GMT -6
Fred,
You've brought up many great counter-arguments. My general response is to say right from the beginning you may be right that ol' Dan Kanipe was less than honest about what happened and may even have been a shirker and malingerer. But despite acknowledging that possibility, I lean toward believing Kanipe's story to be more true than false. What underpins my generosity towards Kanipe is the unorthodox command climate of the 7th Cavalry. Custer did, or permitted to be done, many similar things that look odd, but we pass over them without too much remark because there is no reason to be suspicious about them.
Here's one example: You ask why an NCO was sent to do a job that a private could competently perform. It's a fair question. But does it continue to seem so strange when we recall that not long before Custer had sent the regimental Sergeant Major to perform a similar task?
Imagine what a field day people would have had if Custer had been wiped out while Sharrow was delivering his message! The poor Sergeant Major would have had a hard time explaining to posterity why he was doing the job of a private while real heroes were dying. He might have lost his stripes.
It seems to me that to blame Kanipe for all the admitted oddities is to misplace blame that more properly rests on Custer's shoulders. Why was Tom Custer made ADC in the face of the enemy, leaving a butter bar in charge of his company? One can go on and on.
I still think the most likely reason that Custer was wanting a message to go to the pack train was because the pack train would eventually have reached the point were his trail diverged from Renos's trail, and McDougall & Mathey would have been unsure of which to follow. It stands to reason that Custer wouldn't have wanted them to follow Reno's trail to the river. Additionally, having just ordered Reno to bring the enemy to battle, wouldn't he have the pack train closer to the main body?
I do agree with you in that your #9 has a lot of possibilities.
All the best,
Michael
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 14, 2016 18:58:54 GMT -6
Michael, My general response is to say right from the beginning you may be right that ol' Dan Kanipe was less than honest about what happened and may even have been a shirker and malingerer. I would not be quite that harsh. I would call him neither. Did he get wet feet? Yes, I believe he did, but other than that he performed as he should have. And if he bogied-up the story, well, he has to live with it. In reality, he did perform a service, however unneeded it may have seemed. This is true... but the circumstances were vastly different: no Indians within 15 miles and Sharrow was instructed to and did return. Kanipe did not. And he did not make any effort to do so. Michael, please do not get me wrong: I am not blaming Kanipe for anything. In my opinion, he was a good soldier and a good man. Even good soldiers, however, can get scared and back away as decently as their conscience will allow them. No one died because of what Daniel Kanipe did that day. So neither blame nor responsibility should weigh down the man's shoulders. That is a very valid point as far as it goes. It was not unusual, however, and that butter-bar was an experienced and highly thought-of officer. His actions were almost pre-ordained because of circumstances. Quite similar, in fact, to the predicament Keogh was thrust into. I understand your point here, but I think you may be giving Custer too much credit for thinking ahead. Again, both Mathey and McDougall were good, experienced officers, and they would have done the right thing. I doubt very seriously they would have crossed that river... at least without knowing what was ahead of them. Remember something, when the pack train was approaching Reno Hill, McDougall could not quite make out who was there or what was going on. Remember? And what did he do? In the only example of a platoon action that day, McDougall put out a platoon and instructed Mathey what to do with the mules and men if they got into a fracas. Some underestimate the combat quality of some of these officers. That was a darn nice post, Michael. It is a pleasure. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 15, 2016 7:30:02 GMT -6
Good point on the river crossing Fred. Would the pack mules carrying the ammunition cross in the lead ? Would the rear guard split to cover the crossing and the rear?
Seems like a valuable target for the Indians to me.
For those that think Benteen was to cross the river with the pack train it gives something to ponder. Benteen would not move across until the pack train comes up to the crossing. That leave Reno on his own and potentially destroyed. The Indians are on the bluffs and can see the soldiers in Reno Creek waiting to cross the river. Seems worse than what actually occurred to me.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 15, 2016 9:53:42 GMT -6
Off to Arizona Ranger Training School (ARTS) will be back Friday night. Saturday is MILO for the Park Ranger Training Program.
MILO is a firearms simulator that requires a demonstration of use of force and judgments
See you next week
Steve
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Mar 16, 2016 9:16:16 GMT -6
Fred,
The reason why I assumed you were hard on Kanipe is because in your book you raise the possibility of him being a "malingerer" (page 107).
Pretty tough language!
All the best,
Michael
|
|