|
Post by fred on Jun 3, 2018 14:50:27 GMT -6
I know I am. That`s why I`m here. It is also why you are one of the best and nicest people who have ever been on this site. I may not be here very often any more, but I watch. And I think you have a great name: Geir. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 4, 2018 18:34:05 GMT -6
In May, 1888, the 25th Infantry regiment transferred to Montana, exchanging stations with the 3rd Infantry. Headquarters and four companies were located at Ft. Missoula, four companies went to Ft. Shaw and two to Ft. Custer. In September, 1890, companies I and K were skeletonized pursuant to orders from the War Department. Lieutenant-Colonel Van Horn, with companies C, E, F and H, arrived at Fort Keogh the last of November, 1890, and remained there in camp until February 5, 1891, when they returned to their stations, nothing further having been required of them during campaign against hostile Sioux. Three rather controversial military exemplars involved in the chain of command responsible for the replacement of 217 wooden battlefield markers with todays marble tributes by Capt. Sweet whose theory of events is visible to every battlefield visit. Brig. Gen. Owen Jay SweetIn October 1865, at the age of 26, Nelson A. Miles was named Major General of Volunteers in command of II Corps. As commandant of Fort Monroe, Virginia, after the war, he became the custodian of Jefferson Davis, and for keeping him shackled in his cell, was the target of severe public criticism, even in the North. In July 1866 was appointed Colonel in the regular army and in March 1869 was commander of the 5th U.S. Infantry. His subsequent service on the Western frontier was dedicated and courageous during recurring hostilities with the Indians. Achieved victories against Cheyenne, Comanche, Kiowa and Arapaho on the Staked Plains of Texas in 1874-75, notably the victory of Colonel Ranald S. MacKenzie at Palo Duro Canyon, September 24, 1874, and later was instrumental in driving the Sioux under Sitting Bull into Canada nd pacifying those under Crazy Horse. He captured Chief Joseph in 1877 after the Nez Perces incredible march toward sanctuary in Canada, and the following year pacified the Bannocks under Chief Elk Horn near Yellowstone. Promoted to Brigadier General in December 1880, he commanded the Department of the Columbia until 1885 and the Department of the Missouri in 1885-86, and in April 1886 succeeded General George Crook as the commander of the Department of Arizona, where he succeeded in September in finally capturing the elusive Apache leader, Geronimo. He commanded the Department of the Pacific at San Francisco in 1888-90, receiving promotion to Major General in April 1890. In the last uprising of the Sioux in South Dakota in late 1890, during which Sitting Bull was killed, he restored U.S. control over the Indians, but his reputation was permanently tarnished by the massacre of some 200 Sioux, including women and children, by troops under the command of Colonel James W. Forsyth (7th U.S. Cavalry) at Wounded Knee, South Dakota, on December 29, 1890. James Sanks Brisbin was teacher and owner and editor of the Centre Democrat newspaper in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. He studied law and, admitted to the bar of Pennsylvania, was a prominent anti-slavery orator. He enlisted in the Pennsylvania volunteer services as a private when ACW began and was appointed a second lieutenant in 2nd U.S. Dragoons. What followed was a quite brilliant military career of promotions and wounds in battle which is, possibly, unrivalled. From 1868–92, he served as an officer in several cavalry regiments, including the Second, Ninth, First, and Eighth regiments in the Northwestern United States. Brisbin was in command of the 2nd Cavalry of General John Gibbon's Montana Column at the time of the Little Big Horn campaign. Brisbin offered his 2nd Cavalry to Custer at the final command meeting of Generals Terry, Gibbon, and Custer just prior to the final march into the Big Horn valley, but Custer declined it, stating that the 7th Cavalry alone could defeat the hostiles. Brisbin never forgave Custer for this, and is alleged to have called the dead Custer an "insufferable ass". In various correspondence he was openly critical of Custer. He was also a prolific writer and variously staff officer, battalion or squadron commander, post commander, and regimental commander; who served at Fort D. A. Russell, Fort Pease on the Yellowstone River, Boise Barracks, Omaha Barracks, Camp Stambaugh, Fort Ellis, Fort Assiniboine, Fort Keogh, Fort Custer, Fort Niobrara, Fort Robinson, Fort McKinney, and finally at Fort Meade in South Dakota known as 'Grasshopper Jim'. At the time of his death Brisbin was the Colonel in command of the Eighth Cavalry Regiment and dead.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 5, 2018 6:26:48 GMT -6
Theory of Company E's fate as it prevails today, is the result but obviously not culmination of, interpretations and development of the field as it is and has been discovered by one and all since May of 1890. There was observation based theory from Maj. Reno and Capt. Benteen, the circle route theory reported by Terry, complemented by three clock sweep based military considerations, Lt. Maguire's original single line of mounted retreat BDE, which was given also by Lt. Patterson Hughes and a broad participant opinion that a running fight took place. Early military 'reporting' developed Maguire's BDE map; and both Sioux and Cheyenne accounts of the fighting followed within weeks. The Cheyenne record particularly impressed with a confusing itinery of movement which complimented the scene of Custer, Keogh and Yates' fight but was and remains as devilish to decypher as enigma code. Despite this, there is only the participant record with which to work unless the copiously practiced musings and soothsaying of students and authors are lent undue weight. Two Moons crossed the Little Bighorn River to confront the ICFEL companies and he gave that the first soldiers killed, were those 17 or 18 found on what is now Finley Finkle. I long studied Two Moon's history of this battle and it is the entire jumble of jumbled words and terms (jumbley) which is is translation of Cheyenne speak and hand signs. That said, he said what he said and knew what it meant and why it meant what it meant and why he was saying it. That such as Richard Wooden Leg might mock one of their 44 seniors indicates the misceivous nature of the likes of Marquis who played the merry jester with his inane battle accounts. So, the first serious fighting took place on the Finley/Finkle ridge of knolls defining the western flank of Deep Coulee as it wends its way northwards from the river and Greasy Grass Hill terminus of Greasy Grass Ridge. There is a broadly accepted opinion that troops were simultaneously on terrain to north at Calhoun Hill. So far so good. If we now jump forward through 1890, to the deaf musing of Charles Kuhlman's celebrated work with this battle - then, Company E (E Troop) are/were already compromised on the SSL (South Skirmish Line) and long past help of any kind. They had already been overwhelmed, broken and run for their lives. This teory was developed by Charles, based entirely upon the battlefield markers placed by Owen Jay Sweet in 1890. Thus, it is of interest to 'divine' how, Sweet, did his medicine with the markers. He found 217 wooden markers when he inventoried the field in May 1890. How did Benteen's chaotic fight turn into the ordered formations which were seen in Sweet's minds eye and which were then interpreted by Kuhlman. A point of order here - Kuhlman knew John Stands in Timber. That is worthy of very deep contemplations. To be continued -
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 5, 2018 6:51:46 GMT -6
I am now going to do one of those very interesting asides with Little Bighorn's oddities. In this instance it is with the thoughts committed to paper, at the time, by the participant Edward S. Godfrey. The field diary of Lt. Edward Settle Godfrey, commanding commanding Co. K, 7th Cavalry Regiment under Lt. Colonel George Armstrong Custer in the Sioux encounter at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, covering the period from May 17, 1876 when the expedition commanded by Brigadier General Alfred H. Terry left Ft. Abraham Lincoln, Bismark, Dakota Territory until the return of the battered regiment a few days after September 24, 1876, to the same place. Edited with an introd. and notes by Edgar I. Stewart and Jane R. Stewart. Together with a note on the Kicking Bear pictograph by Carl S. Dentzel. 'We were watching anxiously for our pack train with the reserve ammunition for the three Cos had expended nearly all they had on their persons in the woods below - in the meantime Col Reno sent one Co. to some bluffs lower down to look for Genl Custer. We heard volley firing and the rattle of the guns. The Co. returned soon after without any tidings of Genl Custer — we thought it very strange that he did not make his way back to us. So, soon after the packs got up we mounted and moved towards where Genl Custer was supposed to be. We got on some very high bluffs and large numbers of Indians were seen on some bluffs about two miles away but the firing had ceased except an occasional shot. Upon our appearance at the bluffs the Indians directed their attention towards us, and large numbers almost immediately ran toward us — on their approach it was evident they meant business......'Within todays established knowledge and opinion, Godfrey noted an oddity which can variously be explained by the tombe of knowledge which subsequently accumulated. The entire Weir Peak and Edgerley's advance is however a grey gray area of mystery entwined with the fate of Company E. What did Weir, Edgerley and the men of Company D see over on Custer's battleground? What could they actually see? Well, they would certainly have seen Kuhlman's theory unfolding before their eyes had it been that way. That is, two officers and nearly forty EM. Not only would demise of Company E have been witnessed but the end of the entire command. Didn't happen that way, did it. Kuhlman was.............. nuts.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jun 5, 2018 9:15:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jun 6, 2018 11:13:45 GMT -6
I know I am. That`s why I`m here. It is also why you are one of the best and nicest people who have ever been on this site. I may not be here very often any more, but I watch. And I think you have a great name: Geir. Best wishes, Fred. Thank you vet much for the kind words, even if I don`t can agree. Glad you are around. My name is outdated; in ol Norse it meant "Spear" or "Spearhead", but when speaking to English-speaking people today I always have to explain that EI is not pronounced AY...it doesn`t sound to cool when pronounced the last way. All the best, Geir
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 7, 2018 8:53:41 GMT -6
I wasn`t there, mind you, so I may be totally off. ... you are. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, you are a crusty old fart. His opinion is as good as yours. I won't see you in June, maybe in August.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by battledetective on Jun 7, 2018 10:18:37 GMT -6
In my mind, the easy way is to think E company maybe fought in two "platoons" with one being wiped out around LSH (on Cemetery Ridge and at the mouth of DR etc), and the second one retreating to LSH and then being the one mentioned by a lot of Indians as running down from the hill towards the end of the fighting and killed around the DR. I wasn`t there, mind you, so I may be totally off. Hi Noggy! That's another interesting hypothesis. Companies were divided in two platoons. So maybe it's possible that one platoon was deployed on or near Cemetery ridge as rearguard or to provide suppressive fire, while the other platoon with A. Smith proceeded towards LSH. Then just before the end on LSH a group of soldiers, mostly from this second platoon, tried to make a desperate break towards their comrades. Maybe some of you guys here knows if platoons could be deployed as independent tactical formations according to army doctrine? And even if the doctrine didn't prescribe that, officers can always improvise in the field. A remarkable thing I read a couple months ago is a piece of news according to which an original map drawn soon after the battle has been recently discovered. Reconstructions of the battle were based on a copy of this map, which was found to have significant mistakes respect to the original. My bad, I didn't bookmark the link and it seems I cannot find it now, but if and when I do I'll post it here. According to this original map the real location of Deep Ravine was the ravine that runs parallel NW of the 'official' one. Another thing present on the original map but not on the copy was a satellite camp of wickiups near the river, which suggests that the number of warriors was greater than usually thought. Another puzzling thing is the position of the body of ass. surgeon Lord, which is a couple hundred feet east of the main soldier line, according to the map provided by Herosrest: cdm16013.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15018coll5/id/9/rec/78Why did he end up there?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 7, 2018 19:07:50 GMT -6
His opinion is as good as yours. The problem is, his is an opinion. Mine is not. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 7, 2018 19:11:04 GMT -6
Another puzzling thing is the position of the body of ass. surgeon Lord, which is a couple hundred feet east of the main soldier line, according to the map provided by Herosrest.... Why did he end up there? He didn't. Despite what others said—including Benteen—Dr. George Lord was identified by 2LT Richard E. Thompson, General Terry’s Acting Commissary of Subsistence, about twenty feet southeast of George Custer, on the hillside. Thompson was attached from Company K, 6th Infantry, and spent much of the campaign aboard the steamer “Far West,” but accompanied Benteen, Nowlan, Hughes, and Michaelis to Custer Hill on June 27, 1876. He identified Lord’s body twenty feet southeast of Custer’s. He also reported seeing Mark Kellogg’s body 100 yards from the river, probably indicating Custer returned that way from looking for another, more northerly ford across the LBH. Today Marker 17 is for Dr. Lord and is located on the lower SSL (the so-called “fugitive line”). In all likelihood, this is an incorrect placement. In my opinion, the correct placement should be Marker 98. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 7, 2018 20:03:51 GMT -6
The book about the map and camp is Robert Nightingale's The Mystery of Sitting BullHe is doing the W Kent King thing from a limited subset and fascinating over only one of the various versions of Maguire's maps. WKK did the full ball of wax in his excellently contovercial book. Fantastic research but not quite what everyone wishes to accept and OTT on conspiracy where in fact and for example, Terry's family did pretty much what Custer's wife did with repution but not openly. If I remember well, Nightingale also published the long lost appeal to Reno to save them on Custer Hill. The lost last message found on the battlefield. That was originally written up in the 1920's I believe and W.A. Graham was then moved to hunt up Benteen's note. Fascinating stuff. The Garryowen guy Kortlander has a book just out about conspiracy and I suspect - little love lost for Nightingale. These are hard core battle nuts who live or lived in the valley of death. Great work if you find it. The froth, if you like. It is an interesting map but Maguire's original - the July 2nd 1876 one which went with his report to Humphries, I think it was and which was traced by Gillespie at St. Paul on 2nd August 1876 - is far more interesting and relevant. Arrow to the Heart is the Kortlander book. He put Garryowen up for sale but could not get anything for it. Elizabeth Custer's collection was held there in trust but I believe that it was taken, somehow. Lots.... he he.... of Custer related stuff still pops up in auctions and even relics from the battlefield. I believe that someone quite recently discovered Kellogg's skull and spurs.
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jun 8, 2018 1:14:13 GMT -6
His opinion is as good as yours. The problem is, his is an opinion. Let me clarify, Fred: No, like I said, it is the easiest way (meant as for me personally) to view the fighting around LSH, in general. That does not mean it is my opinion of how it went down. If it was, I hardly would have agreed straight away with it not being correct. All the best, Noggy
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Jun 8, 2018 1:26:37 GMT -6
In my mind, the easy way is to think E company maybe fought in two "platoons" with one being wiped out around LSH (on Cemetery Ridge and at the mouth of DR etc), and the second one retreating to LSH and then being the one mentioned by a lot of Indians as running down from the hill towards the end of the fighting and killed around the DR. I wasn`t there, mind you, so I may be totally off. Hi Noggy! That's another interesting hypothesis. Tjenare It`s not a hypothesis. There are many good models of what happened and how it happened around LSH. Michno, Fred (and posters here and on other boards), Donahue etc have written and argued well for their theories. I`m still on the fence about very much of this part of the battle. Can`t seem to agree with myself, as they say. What I wrote what therefore more a "It could be as simple as..", yet I know it`s not. On a side note: You guys have the magazine "Militærhistorie" over there? (This is off topic so you can PM me) All the best,Noggy
|
|
|
Post by battledetective on Jun 8, 2018 5:29:06 GMT -6
Another puzzling thing is the position of the body of ass. surgeon Lord, which is a couple hundred feet east of the main soldier line, according to the map provided by Herosrest.... Why did he end up there? He didn't. Despite what others said—including Benteen—Dr. George Lord was identified by 2LT Richard E. Thompson, General Terry’s Acting Commissary of Subsistence, about twenty feet southeast of George Custer, on the hillside. Thompson was attached from Company K, 6th Infantry, and spent much of the campaign aboard the steamer “Far West,” but accompanied Benteen, Nowlan, Hughes, and Michaelis to Custer Hill on June 27, 1876. He identified Lord’s body twenty feet southeast of Custer’s. He also reported seeing Mark Kellogg’s body 100 yards from the river, probably indicating Custer returned that way from looking for another, more northerly ford across the LBH. Today Marker 17 is for Dr. Lord and is located on the lower SSL (the so-called “fugitive line”). In all likelihood, this is an incorrect placement. In my opinion, the correct placement should be Marker 98. Best wishes, Fred. Thanks for the clarification Fred! That makes completely sense. The incorrect location of the markers is a major problem for students of the battle.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jun 8, 2018 6:42:16 GMT -6
In my mind, the easy way is to think E company maybe fought in two "platoons" with one being wiped out around LSH (on Cemetery Ridge and at the mouth of DR etc), and the second one retreating to LSH and then being the one mentioned by a lot of Indians as running down from the hill towards the end of the fighting and killed around the DR.
I wasn`t there, mind you, so I may be totally off. Hi Noggy! That's another interesting hypothesis. Companies were divided in two platoons. So maybe it's possible that one platoon was deployed on or near Cemetery ridge as rearguard or to provide suppressive fire, while the other platoon with A. Smith proceeded towards LSH. Then just before the end on LSH a group of soldiers, mostly from this second platoon, tried to make a desperate break towards their comrades. Maybe some of you guys here knows if platoons could be deployed as independent tactical formations according to army doctrine? And even if the doctrine didn't prescribe that, officers can always improvise in the field.
A remarkable thing I read a couple months ago is a piece of news according to which an original map drawn soon after the battle has been recently discovered. Reconstructions of the battle were based on a copy of this map, which was found to have significant mistakes respect to the original. My bad, I didn't bookmark the link and it seems I cannot find it now, but if and when I do I'll post it here. According to this original map the real location of Deep Ravine was the ravine that runs parallel NW of the 'official' one. Another thing present on the original map but not on the copy was a satellite camp of wickiups near the river, which suggests that the number of warriors was greater than usually thought.
Another puzzling thing is the position of the body of ass. surgeon Lord, which is a couple hundred feet east of the main soldier line, according to the map provided by Herosrest: cdm16013.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15018coll5/id/9/rec/78 Why did he end up there?It is reality that many hundreds of minor influences from then (circa 1876) affect now and what has transpired with the history and culture of the battle. This is and was continuing. Dr. Lord's body almost certainly was NOT identified on the battlefield. There was a love interest and Thompson may have been aware of this. So, there was a human interest aspect to matters Dr. G.E. Lord as took place with Custer's wife, Sturgis to some extent and Crittenden's son. A part of the Lord saga emerged from and during reporting of the RCoI. There is a discussion of what went on, here in what became a silly playground tit for tat between myself and another poster. It offers the post mortem on Lord and I researched the matter heavily because of th human interest aspect. Lord's sweetheart got her hopes up that he was alive and it led to some unfortunate problems. Good read. Enjoy. Thos who have problems with ToB do not click the link. Gownups only. Regards all. Lord had a girlfriend. Lounsberry's 1879 appeal to Benteen, gives insight to Thompson's ID of Lord and the confusion about his body. Straightforward insights to... people and their humanity. The 1891 map I linked was a copy used by Marquis to plan out his theory for his book, Legends. The map was the first record of the work by Capt Sweet and his company of the 25th Infantry. I don't remember whether company A or D or both. The map was undertaken by Robert B. Marshall, who was and is noted for his peculiar thoroughness. He progressed to high office and responsibilty developing the water and irrigation network in Early 20th Century California. You could say that he made America what is today. He was the ultimate Big Beaver. R.B. MarshallHis map and survey of the markers showed what Sweet's effort provided on the ground. The Lord marker is where he found it to be. So the answer lies with Sweet and possibly Brisbin who was at Fort Custer then. He issued the orders for the mission. Dr. Lord was identified by the socks he was wearing according to the Senior surgeon with the expedition; in fashion similar to identification of reporter Kellogg by a shoe. Ultimately very unsatisfactory although his notebook was recovered on the battleground and is today a part of a collection somewhere and viewable online. I don't remember what Kuhlman had to say or deduce about Lord's marker and may look it up in an idle moment.
|
|