|
Post by benteen on Dec 1, 2016 16:36:40 GMT -6
Forum members,
On the blue board (Beths) there is an interesting theory that the battle flowed North to South rather than the popular theory of South to North. I dont believe it for different reas ons but there were some interesting opinions from what I consider knowledgeable people supporting it. What do you think.
Be Well Dan
PS...I believe Gordon Harper put some credence in that theory
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Dec 1, 2016 17:11:49 GMT -6
Dan,
You know what I think, read Godfrey's comments on Ford B, read JSIT, read Weibert. It is not the end all be all but it makes GAC look much smarter.
Oh my God somebody finally posted something on the LBH, dust off the cobwebs!
God Bless you, Dan. You may have kept Diane from jumping off a bridge!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 1, 2016 21:57:14 GMT -6
Dan, You know what I think, read Godfrey's comments on Ford B, read JSIT, read Weibert. It is not the end all be all but it makes GAC look much smarter. Oh my God somebody finally posted something on the LBH, dust off the cobwebs! God Bless you, Dan. You may have kept Diane from jumping off a bridge! Regards, Tom Tom, LOL..Thank you my friend. I am watching the Vikings Cowboys game and will add more tommorow. I appreciate your response as always Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 3, 2016 9:55:21 GMT -6
There was a revolver case found on BRE that matches revolver cases found on Calhoun.
Interesting?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 3, 2016 10:23:10 GMT -6
There was a revolver case found on BRE that matches revolver cases found on Calhoun. Interesting? "Interesting?" No more so than the fact four L Company men were found on or in the environs of Last Stand Hill and another found on the so-called South Skirmish Line. C and I company men were found thereabouts as well. I can give you the names of eleven men from C, I, and L who were found someplace other than where they should have been... and that does not include Foley or Butler. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 3, 2016 10:40:38 GMT -6
The case found is down BRE and off the NPS property on preservation land. It also has numerous Indian cases. From the location on BRE that Donahue took us to you are looking at the fill area of the current entrance road. The photo he has of the Kellogg marker along the old entrance road would been in alignment and visible it was still there and the road not filled in.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 3, 2016 10:51:51 GMT -6
Donahue has to conduct his work on his own time but he doesn't have far to go to do it. I am sure that he has more for his book then the tidbits he gives on the Friends battlefield tours. A few years back Scott presented the movement of materials in the Ford Ds for fill to make the new entrance.
What I believe is that Custer was on offense when he moved north. At some point he recognized the game had changed and went to defense. It was to late to gather all 5 companies in a defensive position with overlapping fields of fire.
It does not surprise me that in the end of a total destruction of 5 companies that we observe movements of troopers not consistent with staying with their company. We have in general the end point but will always be discussing how they got their in my opinion.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Dec 3, 2016 10:54:01 GMT -6
There was a revolver case found on BRE that matches revolver cases found on Calhoun. Interesting? Steve, Yes it is interesting, but I dont think it means much unless you know who fired them. In the post on the other board someone said there were cartridge casings found near Ford D or C/R that belonged to C Co. Now, if C Co troopers fired those rounds then it would throw out my opinion that Cos C I L were never with Custer at Ford D, that these were 2 seperate fights. However, in my opinion it is more likely that after the warriors destroyed Keoghs battalion, they picked up the troopers carbines and revolvers and used them against Custer, that it was the warriors that fired these weapons not the troopers. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 3, 2016 11:13:44 GMT -6
There is no way C Company was at Ford D... no way! You-- or Steve-- hit it on the nose when you-- or Steve-- alluded to someone picking up a weapon and discharging elsewhere. Again, one needs to look at the Indians' accounts and those accounts need to be looked at from the perspective of time and terrain. You cannot have an Indian of the Battle Ridge Extension, then on Finley-Fickle Ridge, then Cemetery Ridge, then Calhoun Hill. It does not compute. If you take an Indian's account-- any Indian-- and read through it, then break it down event by event, you should reach a natural flow of action and presence. Once you do that you can determine where, precisely, he was and what terrain features he is referring to. You can then take that and compare it to another account and see where the similarities are, if any.
While I am a big believer in the archaeological findings, they are far from 100% accurate, especially with this thing. Who is to say some tourist didn't pick up a couple of shell casings from Calhoun Hill, and then drop one, accidentally, while he was wandering around Ford D?
As far as I am concerned, Indian accounts verify archaeology; and archaeology verifies Indian accounts. When you use the two together-- and can supplement those with sounds heard by upstream troopers-- you can get a very accurate picture of who was where and what happened, when. The rest is wishful thinking or sheer speculation.
In my opinion, you have two types of people who want to be contrarians: those who want to promote some idea they have and those who are simply raising stupid issues for the sake of slinging something around.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 3, 2016 11:48:53 GMT -6
There was a revolver case found on BRE that matches revolver cases found on Calhoun. Interesting? Steve, Yes it is interesting, but I dont think it means much unless you know who fired them. In the post on the other board someone said there were cartridge casings found near Ford D or C/R that belonged to C Co. Now, if C Co troopers fired those rounds then it would throw out my opinion that Cos C I L were never with Custer at Ford D, that these were 2 seperate fights. However, in my opinion it is more likely that after the warriors destroyed Keoghs battalion, they picked up the troopers carbines and revolvers and used them against Custer, that it was the warriors that fired these weapons not the troopers. Be Well Dan Hi Dan I think Donahue will answer that question in his new book. He stated there is a match on the cases. When using this type of evidence there are a lot scenarios that would be consistent with a case found in both locations with the same tool marks. Semper Fi Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 3, 2016 11:57:44 GMT -6
There is no way C Company was at Ford D... no way! You-- or Steve-- hit it on the nose when you-- or Steve-- alluded to someone picking up a weapon and discharging elsewhere. Again, one needs to look at the Indians' accounts and those accounts need to be looked at from the perspective of time and terrain. You cannot have an Indian of the Battle Ridge Extension, then on Finley-Fickle Ridge, then Cemetery Ridge, then Calhoun Hill. It does not compute. If you take an Indian's account-- any Indian-- and read through it, then break it down event by event, you should reach a natural flow of action and presence. Once you do that you can determine where, precisely, he was and what terrain features he is referring to. You can then take that and compare it to another account and see where the similarities are, if any. While I am a big believer in the archaeological findings, they are far from 100% accurate, especially with this thing. Who is to say some tourist didn't pick up a couple of shell casings from Calhoun Hill, and then drop one, accidentally, while he was wandering around Ford D? As far as I am concerned, Indian accounts verify archaeology; and archaeology verifies Indian accounts. When you use the two together-- and can supplement those with sounds heard by upstream troopers-- you can get a very accurate picture of who was where and what happened, when. The rest is wishful thinking or sheer speculation. In my opinion, you have two types of people who want to be contrarians: those who want to promote some idea they have and those who are simply raising stupid issues for the sake of slinging something around. Best wishes, Fred. If nothing else this is good for business on this board. I have not heard about anything found at Ford Ds. What I did hear is Douglas Scott stating surface material was removed from the Ford Ds area and placed in the new entrance roadbed. which would be consistent with the lack of artifacts or no artifacts ever there. I believe that Scott also found evidence of a timber area that no longer exists but that is stretching my memory. The case that was a match to another case was on Battle Ridge Extension just across the NPS fence and on Preservation property if I recall correctly. I think Will Hutchinson and myself attempted to estimate the distance to the visitor center and came up with around 800 yards. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 3, 2016 12:37:39 GMT -6
What is "Ford Ds"?
That whole area down there is an archaeological disaster field. Let's not forget about the gravel pit that is no longer in use. Let us also not forget the trash dump at Ford B. I believe BC (Britt Colle) when he was there back in 2009 was still picking up crap-- or at least saw-- some junk there. So those areas prove nothing, nor can they.
One of the best publications is the Scott/Bleed booklet, A Good Walk Around the Boundary... or something of that title (I have it stuck away on a high shelf and cannot read the title). They discuss that area to a fair extent and what they say ties in with the Richard Fox theory and what little we have from the Indians around Ford D. That whole area is the most disturbed (other than the desecration of Cemetery Ridge) and the least spoken of of any place on the field. Still, my connect-the-dots theory... well... connects the dots!!!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 3, 2016 13:39:05 GMT -6
I just looked at my 1955 green colored Custer Battlefield brochure by Edward S. and Evelyn S. Lucy. It clearly has "Crazy Horse Attack" coming around the cemetery and right through the drainage where the new road is located. I also have the Cheyenne Village located across the river from the NPS property on the Custer Battlefield.
Today I think the current belief is that CH came up MTC and the Cheyenne Village was closer to MTC.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Dec 3, 2016 15:40:50 GMT -6
Fox put the ki-bosh on the old "Crazy Horse Ravine" business. Fox believes-- as do I, based on more Indian accounts-- Crazy Horse moved up Deep Ravine. No question in my mind.
Again, we can all have whacky theories, but unless they can be supported by evidence, they remain just that: whacky. Crazy Horse went up Deep Ravine, then breeched Keogh's position through the gap on Battle Ridge... in my opinion, my most important contribution to this whole event... the gap in Battle Ridge.
Current thinking today is the bottom of the Cheyenne village (the most farthest north) was across from Medicine Tail Coulee ford. Michno also placed it there. That is incorrect, though not by much. It extended about 1/4-mile farther north... maybe even 1/2-mile. All you need to do is read Wooden Leg, then check a map. Why would anyone-- modern-day anyone-- dispute that? How could they? With what proof or support?
Best wishes, fred.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on Dec 3, 2016 17:10:57 GMT -6
Fred,
I am interested in your point about coupling Indian testimony with archeological information. This would seem to provide a stronger evidence based account for "what happened." Having said that, there are going to be areas where we will only have speculation to work with, though even then there will be better/worse reasoned speculation.
This battle has produced an overwhelming abundance of opinion, unsupported speculation presented as fact, and outright ideology (i.e. Custer's a rat; Custer's a saint). I would like to make use of the advice received in college: Find the source material, if possible. And if no source material exists to support claims, then it probably needs to be discarded in spite of "xyz" historian having stated it in their work.
My question: Are there any books, etc. you recommend that offer this Indian testimony with archeology approach, and do it with a minimum of preconceived ideas.
Thanks, Bruce
|
|