|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jun 6, 2005 21:55:53 GMT -6
Here's a question from a website visitor:
Was there a postmortum examination of Custer's body as to the wounds he suffered?
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Jun 7, 2005 5:11:22 GMT -6
Here's a question from a website visitor:Was there a postmortum examination of Custer's body as to the wounds he suffered? No. The only evidence as to Custer's wounds is the accounts given of observations made by men of Terry's column and of the Reno/Benteen battalions when the bodies on Custer Hill were discovered on June 27 and buried on June 28. At the time of the exhumation for reburial in 1877, the remains were skeletal - although locks of hair adhered to the skull, some of which helped convince Elizabeth Custer that it was indeed her husband's remains which were reburied at West Point. Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by michiganderFanny on Jun 7, 2005 10:43:27 GMT -6
There was also who said the remains brought to West Point were "symbolic". Because were very few. Personally I would prefere to think the General still there to rest, among his men.
|
|
|
Post by Inkpaduta on Jun 7, 2005 15:19:50 GMT -6
According to Lt. Godfrey, George Armstrong Custer recieved two bullet-wounds. He was shot in the 'left side' and in the 'temple'. There is a tale that a squaw stuck a bone awl deep into both of his ears... so he would hear better in the afterlife. According to what I've read, that is the only 'mutilation' he recieved. Seeing that there were many wounded to care for and the desire to make a hasty exit from the field... a true 'postmortem' was neither practical nor desired... they were dead.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jun 8, 2005 3:37:22 GMT -6
In Richard Hardorffs two books, the Custer battle Causualties, II, and The Custer Battle Causualties, he quotes several wittnesses who viewed the body, the best in my opinion, being Sergeant O'Neil, who gives a fairly detailed discription of the wounds on the body. My guess would be that apart from the fatal wounds, Custer was probably mutilated to some degree, Godfrey reported peculier mutilation to the genitals, there was the report of a finger taken off, a long slash to the thighs, and that story of the awl used to pierce his ear. Many of the discriptions of the body, have tended to romantisise the scene, having Custer lying there virtually unblemished, as if he were asleep. Most of the men were horribly mutilated, we can see examples of this in many of the Red Horse drawings of the battle. As far as the Indians were concerned, Custer was just another soldier like all the rest. Shan
|
|
|
Post by Mike Nunnally on Jun 8, 2005 6:17:29 GMT -6
Actually a 'postmortem' was performed...a very crude one by Dr. Porter. In a letter by a Bigelow Neal...he stated that ...as a lad of 14 Porter was visiting his family and detailed his observations of the body of the General:
''I found he had been shot twice. One a wound high on the left shoulder which, unless it became infected,would not be fatal, the other a bullet hole in the temple. Noticing a bunch on the back of Custer's head, I opened with a knife and took out a bullet.The bullet was of a curious pointed type only used in the .41 caliber at the time and the base of it just fitted the muzzle of my .41 caliber revolver. ''
According to Neal's letter Custer may have shot himself or someone may have used the General's gun to do the deed. He also says Custer had a .41 caliber revolver given to him by Gen. Terry. ....Anyway, it is an interesting story, although it is second hand.....I wish Dr. Porter had written the letter...a first hand account on something this dramatic would have been preferred. This story appeared in the RESEARCH REVIEW, summer 2004...The Custer Mystery By Don Horn if anyone wants to read it.
Scout
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Jun 8, 2005 11:27:26 GMT -6
Hello Scout, Bigelow Neal's tale [for that is all I believe it to be - and a tall one at that!] is fatally flawed as historical evidence. Not only did Porter never mention these alleged actions himself - but no-one else present on that busy hillside during the burials has so much as hinted that Porter partially opened the rear of Custer's head! As you rightly note, this is a second hand anecdote from years later, which does not have a single corroboration (or even a hint of one) from any primary source.
Can you imagine that Porter was in possession of the bullet that felled Custer and not a murmur of this extraordinary relic escaped him or anyone else who was on that hillside when he took it? It beggars belief that if there was a shred of truth to this that our only reference to it would be a letter years later from someone who alleges he had heard it as a 14 year old boy!
No, to my mind this smacks absolutely of someone who, as a youngster, most probably did listen in on a conversation regarding Custer's wounds between Porter and his family. I also have no doubt that Porter confined himself to describing the wounds which he and others observed externally upon Custer. Years later, Neal - now an adult - writes a letter describing his boyhood meeting with the LBH veteran Porter, and his description of Custer's corpse. But he can't resist embellishing his 'brush with history' by ascribing things to Porter which the latter never said anywhere else. In other words, Custer is famous history by this time - and Neal chips in with an exclusive 'new' revelation! In a way, it's akin to some of the survivors of the Benteen/Reno battalions who, as the years passed could not resist 'gilding the lily' of their actual experiences by inventing adventures or knowledge which they did not actualy have.
I totally reject Neal's account of a battlefield 'post-mortem' by Porter.
Ciao, GAC
|
|
|
Post by Mike Nunnally on Jun 8, 2005 12:08:53 GMT -6
Greetings GAC,
Yea, as I said...I find the story suspect as well. If this had been something Porter wrote, then it has some validation...but it was never mentioned by him in anything I ever found....the bullet that killed Custer..reminds me of a story in Life magazine back in the 80's on the dig on last stand hill..someone was holding a fired bullet with the caption..Is this the bullet that killed Custer?
Anyway, in the same story Don puts an interesting theory on Custer's death....wounded at MTC....shot by his brother or another soldier at some point. An interesting theory.
Scout
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Jun 8, 2005 16:27:33 GMT -6
Hallo there Scout! Yes, the Neal tale is decidedly suspect! As to the Life photo of the dug bullet - well, maybe it just could have been the one that killed Custer. Such a thing can never be known, of course, but: Walter Camp records Porter as having stated that Custer was 'shot clear through head, back of both temples, and through the chest.'* Porter is describing an entry hole in one temple and an exit in the other - the bullet having gone 'clear through'. If this was the case, then one of the bullets lying on that part of the hill would certainly have been the one that felled Custer. It should be noted, however, that others who observed Custer's body recorded only one temple wound.
Interestingly, Camp also records that Porter removed a lock of hair from Custer and the other officers, just before they were covered up in the graves - presumably to give to their bereaved family's.** Could it be that Porter's mention to the Neal family of having cut a lock of hair from the dead Custer's head is the kernel of truth behind Bigelow's preposterous tale of him having dug out a bullet from the back of his head?
I haven't seen the Horn article, but I presume that his suggestion of a Custer wounded at MTC and later being despatched by a headshot from Tom or someone else is designed to tie in with the Neale tale of the .41 caliber slug supposedly later dug out by Porter? Leaving aside the latter element of this theory for reasons already gone into, the paradigm of Custer having been wounded (mortally or not) at MTC is an arguable one at least, and one that Utley admits 'would account for much that is puzzling about the fighting on the Custer battlefield.'*** But the arguments for and againt this theory are, I think, material for another thread!
Regards, George
*Custer in '76: Walter Camp's Notes on the Custer Fight, edited by Kenneth Hammer (University of Oklahoma reprint, 1990), p. 110.
** Ibid.
***Cavalier in Buckskin: George Armstrong Custer and the Western Military Frontier, by Robert M. Utley (University of Oklahoma, 1988), p. 199.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 14, 2005 11:22:08 GMT -6
Custer's body found as if asleep does sound highly romanticized. Aside from battle wounds and whatever mutilations, Custer, along with all his men lay in the heat and sun for two days. Scavergers, insects, and rigor mortis surely took its toll on the remains.
Many of the burial detail described bodies as being blackened and bloated, many of the dead unrecognizable.
Custer was no exception.
A cover-up to hide the facts from Libbie and the public may have been implemented. It was bad enough that Custer and all his men were dead . . . but to have the country's most famous Indian fighter mutilated and rotting in the sun would have been to much for the country to face.
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Jun 14, 2005 12:59:22 GMT -6
Custer's body found as if asleep does sound highly romanticized. Aside from battle wounds and whatever mutilations, Custer, along with all his men lay in the heat and sun for two days. Scavergers, insects, and rigor mortis surely took its toll on the remains. Many of the burial detail described bodies as being blackened and bloated, many of the dead unrecognizable. Custer was no exception. A cover-up to hide the facts from Libbie and the public may have been implemented. It was bad enough that Custer and all his men were dead . . . but to have the country's most famous Indian fighter mutilated and rotting in the sun would have been to much for the country to face. I disagree Crzhrs - you might possibly expect the officers Godfrey, Nowlan, Bradley etc., plus Sgt. Ryan as well as several enlisted men who left public accounts of the condition and recognizability of Custer's body to have 'covered up' to some extent in respect of Libby Custer's feelings. However, I would not expect Benteen, in a personal letter to his wife written on July 4 1876, to be anything other than his usual explicit self about anything pertaining to Custer. Yet Benteen writes: 'We buried 203 of the bodies of Custer's command the 2d day after fight - The bodies were as recognizable as if they were in life. With Custer was Keogh, Yates and Tom Custer.........'* In this private letter to his wife written just days later, Benteen had no cause to lie in order to 'cover up' to Custer's widow or the American public. Taking Benteen private testimony alongside every other observer of Custer's corpse, I think it can be accepted that Custer was readily recognizable. Ciao, GAC Source: W. A. Graham, The Custer Myth (Stackpole, 1953), p. 298.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 14, 2005 13:33:33 GMT -6
I did read Benteen's account of the bodies at LSH. However, it seems illogical that after two days in the hot sun with insects and scavengers that bodies were readily recognizable. All accounts state that T Custer was only recognized by tattoos.
Benteen's accounts have always been read with a grain of salt . . . albeit, he would have no reason to lie to his wife . . . still, in my mind, bodies with battle wounds, disfigurement, and the ravages of animals and nature, would hardly be recognizable after that amount of time.
It's great we can disagree in a adult manner!
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 14, 2005 14:28:00 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
But the main issue with Tom Custer is that his body was heavily mutilated by the Indians--he perhaps got the worst of the bunch--before the bugs and wolves and birds got to him. I think they (meaning the burial/identification team) had almost given up on him when they found that tattoo. I know some authors tend to think that because Tom Custer received so much 'special attention' from the warriors and women, he MIGHT have been the last one alive.
And of course, Armstrong--for some reason--got off relatively scot-free; well, apart from being dead and everything!
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by George Armstrong Custer on Jun 14, 2005 15:35:35 GMT -6
Crzhrs-- But the main issue with Tom Custer is that his body was heavily mutilated by the Indians--he perhaps got the worst of the bunch--before the bugs and wolves and birds got to him. I think they (meaning the burial/identification team) had almost given up on him when they found that tattoo. I know some authors tend to think that because Tom Custer received so much 'special attention' from the warriors and women, he MIGHT have been the last one alive. And of course, Armstrong--for some reason--got off relatively scot-free; well, apart from being dead and everything! Regards, Leyton McLean Gentlemen, Col. McLean has put my case for me re Thomas W. That is that the difficulty in Tom's case over facial recognition by the burial party was twofold. As Leyton notes, Tom was (according to the various witnesses) scalped up and over from the back of the neck. He had also had his face severely damaged by either an axe or stone club, and an arrow shot into the top of the skull. Compounding these enemy inflicted injuries, however, Tom's body was left by the hostiles with the face pressing down against the turf. As a pathologist will tell you, leave a body with the face pressing against a surface and the part of the face so pressed will become engorged with blood which 'pools' through gravity. This latter phenomenon has two effects - first the facial features become distended and swollen, and secondly decomposition of the affected area is hastened. Obviously neither is helpful for a facial recognition of the deceased. (In this context it can be noted that Marilyn Monroe's face was engorged with blood on the side on which it lay - and that was only pressing on bedsheets, not prairie like poor Tom). Further, because of the gaping open wounds to Tom's face, and its pressing into the ground, ease of access was afforded for whatever bug-life emerged from the ground beneath and around him in the two days and nights he lay there. Forgive the graphic detail - but it serves a purpose in that it demonstrates that amongst those bodies in the immediate vicinity Tom Custer was, by most accounts, pretty unique in the extent of his facial injuries, exacerbated by his opened face being pressed against the ground. But Tom was absolutely positively ID'd through the tattoo (although Godfrey also thought he'd recognized Tom's physique before he was turned, through having regularly swum with him). My point then is that no-one who was there - not even Benteen in private correspondence with his wife - suggested that Custer's body or those immediately around it were in any way difficult to recognize. The Benteen letter's specification of Tom as amongst the recognized is also correct (though he doesn't mention the role of the tattoo to his wife), and his depiction of the Custer group as being largely 'as recognizable as if they were in life' tallies with other eyewitnesses. The conclusion must be, therefore, that Tom's injuries and post-mortem position created a uniquely difficult situation vis a vis recognition amongst those in Custer's immediate vicinity. Ciao, GAC BTW Leyton - what do you mean 'our' table? Little Phil paid top dollar to your cousin for Libby to have that! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jun 16, 2005 15:21:17 GMT -6
Crzhrs-- But the main issue with Tom Custer is that his body was heavily mutilated by the Indians--he perhaps got the worst of the bunch--before the bugs and wolves and birds got to him. I think they (meaning the burial/identification team) had almost given up on him when they found that tattoo. I know some authors tend to think that because Tom Custer received so much 'special attention' from the warriors and women, he MIGHT have been the last one alive. And of course, Armstrong--for some reason--got off relatively scot-free; well, apart from being dead and everything! Regards, Leyton McLean Gentlemen, Col. McLean has put my case for me re Thomas W. That is that the difficulty in Tom's case over facial recognition by the burial party was twofold. As Leyton notes, Tom was (according to the various witnesses) scalped up and over from the back of the neck. He had also had his face severely damaged by either an axe or stone club, and an arrow shot into the top of the skull. Compounding these enemy inflicted injuries, however, Tom's body was left by the hostiles with the face pressing down against the turf. As a pathologist will tell you, leave a body with the face pressing against a surface and the part of the face so pressed will become engorged with blood which 'pools' through gravity. This latter phenomenon has two effects - first the facial features become distended and swollen, and secondly decomposition of the affected area is hastened. Obviously neither is helpful for a facial recognition of the deceased. (In this context it can be noted that Marilyn Monroe's face was engorged with blood on the side on which it lay - and that was only pressing on bedsheets, not prairie like poor Tom). Further, because of the gaping open wounds to Tom's face, and its pressing into the ground, ease of access was afforded for whatever bug-life emerged from the ground beneath and around him in the two days and nights he lay there. Forgive the graphic detail - but it serves a purpose in that it demonstrates that amongst those bodies in the immediate vicinity Tom Custer was, by most accounts, pretty unique in the extent of his facial injuries, exacerbated by his opened face being pressed against the ground. But Tom was absolutely positively ID'd through the tattoo (although Godfrey also thought he'd recognized Tom's physique before he was turned, through having regularly swum with him). My point then is that no-one who was there - not even Benteen in private correspondence with his wife - suggested that Custer's body or those immediately around it were in any way difficult to recognize. The Benteen letter's specification of Tom as amongst the recognized is also correct (though he doesn't mention the role of the tattoo to his wife), and his depiction of the Custer group as being largely 'as recognizable as if they were in life' tallies with other eyewitnesses. The conclusion must be, therefore, that Tom's injuries and post-mortem position created a uniquely difficult situation vis a vis recognition amongst those in Custer's immediate vicinity. Ciao, GAC BTW Leyton - what do you mean 'our' table? Little Phil paid top dollar to your cousin for Libby to have that! ;D General-- Just a footnote to Tom's injurious injuries: "According to Indian tradition ... Tom, had been knocked down by the charging warriors ... One of the warriors pulled his knife and stabbed Tom in the chest, pulling the blade down the center of his body. Tom's intestines, freed from the constriction of the abdominal wall, spilled out onto the ground. The warrior then cut a deep gash into each of Tom's thighs ... the warrior ... grabbed Tom's left arm and pulled the body over, onto the stomach. The warrior straddled Tom's back and reached down with his hand and grabbed the front of Tom's hair. In a flash, the warrior's knife began to cut away the scalp .... the warrrior dropped the blade to his throat. He cut deeply into the soft tissue, until he could feel the knife strike against Tom's spine." Glad I wasn't hungry when I started to post this! But the description goes on: Later, the women came to Tom's body. One of the women had a mallet, and she beat Tom's skull until his cranium was crushed. A young boy tested his arm by shooting arrows into Tom's crushed skull ...." Pages 269-270, Tom Custer: Ride to Glory , Carl F. Day. (Note--in this quote, I have edited out the most obvious instances of author intrusion, which are, IMHO, the biggest weaknesses of this book.) All in all, it was a pretty rotten day for TWC. Regards, Leyton McLean, CSA (General--you had me laughing! )
|
|