|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 1, 2006 5:57:37 GMT -6
And a happy New Year to you, too!
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 2, 2006 3:43:34 GMT -6
Ahh, the battle of Franklin. More generals killed than any other Civil War battle. I believe 8 is the total, 6 from the CSA and 2 more Union Generals...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 2, 2006 10:45:15 GMT -6
I have read Miller's book, and there is obviously controversy over whether Custer was killed at the Ford which could explain a lot of things.
I found the book enjoyable and I cannot dismiss the fact the Custer may have been killed/wounded at the Ford. Miller was one of the first to base the events at the LBH on Indian testimony and while there may be some holes in their stories, so there are holes in the white's side, also.
All we can do is try to cross-check the accounts and come up with a common denominator . . . which after all the years is still hard to do.
I would recommend the book just to get the "other" side of the story.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2006 11:20:12 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
I understand your point & while I'm about 90% certain Custer was NOT killed at Ford B, we can never rule it out. I keep bringing up Jack Pennington as quite possibly the leading proponent-- today-- of that theory & I respect several of Pennington's contributions, though NOT the killed-at-Ford B theory. I simply base MY theories on eye-witness testimony (either side), reason, archeological evidence, personal psychology, what I would consider intelligent tactics, & w/ all of this, what would I do if I were in that situation. Obviously I wouldn't be doing a helluva lot had I been killed... but you get my point. There are too many other things that happened-- after Ford B-- substantiated by too much OTHER testimony & evidence, to give a lot of credence to the Miller/ Pennington juxtaposition.
If Custer WAS killed or mortally wounded at Ford B, then it mattered not a whit; the units continued on, & it appears to me, they continued on rather leisurely considering the circumstances.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 2, 2006 11:30:50 GMT -6
Fred:
I don't know if you have checked out the thread on Buffalo Calf Road Woman (BOOKS ABOUT LBH AND INDIANS) posted a few weeks ago. It appears the Northern Cheyenne have information that has not been told to outsiders and are supposedly going to release it some time this year.
They state a Indian woman (Buffalo Calf Road Woman) inflicted a wound to Custer as he and his men were trying to head north and caused the command to retreat. She had also fought at the Rosebud with the Cheyenne honoring the battle as The Fight Where the Sister Saved Her Brother.
While this story has been handed down through oral tradition (some here refute any validity to oral history) it does open the possibility of why Custer's command fell so quickly.
So while we may never know for sure if/when Custer was killed early in the fight the possibility is still there and adds to the fun of trying to figure out what happened.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2006 11:44:28 GMT -6
Crzhrs--
I believe Pennington mentions a woman, as well as White Cow Bull, as having killed or seen Custer killed at Ford B. Obviously-- or maybe NOT so obviously-- White Cow Bull takes the credit. So now, w/ 2 witnesses, both having said THEY killed the man, the credibility of either becomes problematic.
And I did see that Cheyenne oral tradition posting earlier, though I did have some difficulty trying to keep my eyes from rolling around in the back of my head. It may not seem that way, but I truly do believe in those things, though I have a problem w/ all this "sudden revelation" business, especially when it's oral. There has been enough fraud perpetrated w/ written & painted items, i.e., the "Hitler Diaries," many of the so-called Rembrandt paintings, etc., so oral history findings-- 129 years after the fact-- don't rank terribly high on my credibility scale.
Like I said, Crzhrs... I'll give it 10% in MY mind, but unless someone comes up w/ something a lot more convincing, it remains at that level.
Best wishes, Fred.
P.S.-- By the way, Buffalo Calf Road Woman seems like the female clone of White Cow Bull. Been everywhere, done everything, saw it all. FCW
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 2, 2006 13:25:43 GMT -6
Crzhrs, anything's possible, so I agree that we can't state flatly as a definite that Custer wasn't killed/wounded at Ford B. But it does take some swallowing ...
Let's visualise it. They're in mid-charge towards MTF. Some are already in the river. Suddenly Our Glorious Leader is hit. Yes, you can see them screeching to a halt ... and possibly Tom rushing forward and shouting contradictory orders ... but can we believe that EVERY officer present instantly went into hysterics? These are guys who've literally waded in blood in the CW, and seen many friends, and commanders, struck down. (Given that, I suppose there could be an element of PTSD emerging at an inopportune moment -- but for ALL of them?) If panic was the result, they'd have scattered to the four winds. Instead, SOMEBODY at this point takes charge -- and decides the brightest thing to do is not to fight back to rejoin the rest of the command ... nor to set up a defensive stand where they are ... but to head off north, into unknown territory, complete with corpse/casualty, making it as hard as possible for support (i.e. Benteen) to join up. If Custer's out of the picture, we have to ask ourselves Who Is The Guilty Man -- because whoever he is, he's nutty as a fruitcake ...
Now -- that Buffalo Calf Road Woman scenario (for all the scepticism one feels -- yes, Fred, I agree on that -- about oral traditions "suddenly revealed" after so many years) might start to make sense IF we move away from Ford B. If the wound's inflicted as they're "trying to head north" ... could it be Ford C? I.e. the Deep Ravine ford? If so, it makes the battalion's deployment marginally less bonkers. If the right wing is ALREADY deployed along the ridge, and Custer with E & F are moving north to Deep Ravine -- or even, arguably, to Ford D -- then what follows is more rational. Gathering-up of fallen leader and retreat towards nearest high ground, namely LSH.
Maybe???
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Jan 2, 2006 19:05:59 GMT -6
Although it cannot be ruled out, I doubt highly that he was killed or wounded at MTF.
The way I understand it, if Custer had been killed, command would have gone to the next ranking officer (Keogh). Cooke, as adjutant, would have accompanied Keogh. As it was, Cooke's body was found near Custer's and not with Keogh.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2006 19:26:45 GMT -6
Treasuredude--
Very, VERY nice point! REALLY sharp thinking!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 2, 2006 21:52:09 GMT -6
The two highest ranking officers in Custer's battalion were found with their companies. Hardly a situation that denotes the lack of their battalion leader.
|
|
|
Post by stevewilk on Jan 2, 2006 22:20:26 GMT -6
Treasuredude: perhaps Custer was merely wounded at the ford and is taken to be cared for by Dr. Lord. Perhaps he is still concious enough to exercise command or even appoint Tom to assume command in his brevet rank of Colonel. Keogh may have been overwhelmed before Custer's death, therefore Cooke would not be able to go to him as adjutant anyway.
I don't buy the Cooke would have been found with Keough as definitive proof of anything. Lots of troopers were not found where they were supposed to be. Remember there was confusion and sudden tactical breakdown. Pennington claims Custer's death was the trigger for this.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Jan 3, 2006 3:39:35 GMT -6
It seems almost the entire HQ unit was found at the top of LSH, the possible exceptions being Lord and Hughes, both of whom were said found with Custer by some and down towards the river by others. Plus, the wayward officers were found on the top with HQ (Tom Custer and A.E. Smith), as were troopers from the right wing. Down below, its mostly F, according to the witnesses, and both of the officers were found there. It could be coincidental and/or random, but I've always felt this pointed to a living, conscious and clear-thinking GAC when the survivors went into last stand mode.
As far as what I think, I think TWC was serving several purposes. Harrington seemed to be able to control the company (he led it on the Reno scout), so Tom Custer was detached for assisting his brother and keeping an eye on Boston and Harry Reed. Now, after the you-know-what hit the fan and the right wing survivors arrived and the final stand was prepared for, Custer was alive. They were whittled down, and most were hit. Bouyer and a few others, maybe Hughes and/or Lord, were still able to run. When Big Beaver spoke of overrunning the hill from the northeast side, he said there were soldiers still shooting. When the Indians came over the crest, a few of them jumped up and ran down towards the river. I think the Indians coming up from the river side were later, and the hill was overran from the backside. Custer and the HQ group were being shot and/or finished off, and Bouyer and some others led a breakout, including Harry Reed and Boston Custer. One of the two civilians was dropped about 200 yards from where they started running, and the other stopped to help. And that's how they ended up several hundred yards down the slope, away from where you'd figure to find them, and mostly alone together.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2006 6:08:37 GMT -6
There are a number of issues to be considered when playing w/ the idea that GAC was either killed outright or mortally wounded at Ford B. First of all, I am 95% certain the units operating there were E, F, & HQ. If GAC went down, George Yates would have assumed command, not Tom Custer. Yates, Tom Custer, AND Cooke all had Civil War experience, & w/ only about 20 Indians at the ford, I simply reject-- out of hand!-- any notion that that cavalry command panicked at THAT time.
NEITHER E Company NOR F Company had a single, solitary man w/ less than 6 months service. And while F-- under Yates-- had 12 men w/ between 6 months & a year's service, E had only 2. There is simply NO basis to claim panic, other than the testimonies of POSSIBLY 2 Indians, one of whom may not have even been there. Other than Dose, there wasn't a single E, F or HQ trooper found anywhere but on the Custer Hill/ SSL/ Deep Ravine/ Cemetery Ravine complex. PANIC BE DAMNED! I'm 99% on THAT one!
I won't belabor a dibilitating wound to GAC at Ford B-- one that may have ultimately been fatal-- but then you have to ask yourself, how did the command re-unite on Calhoun Hill, traipse along Battle Ridge, head down across Custer Hill, Cemetery Ridge, all the way to Ford Whatever-It-May-Have-Been, then back to Cemetery Ridge, all the while carrying the dying CO? Gimme a break! (Ahh, the new year gets the dander up, doesn't it? C'mon, Twomoons... I need you in here!)
I believe panic set in, but not at Ford B. I once believed Richard Fox was correct in his panic theory, but I have since modified that belief & I am now more inclined to go w/ Greg Michno. Essentially, panic after hopelessness. C broke on Finley Ridge, infected L (maybe the best performer of the day) towards its end, ran into I, & the running survivors made Custer Hill, where more panic spread toward the end. I don't agree-- right now-- w/ some theories that the final shots were fired on Calhoun Hill, because too many people (about 20) were found on Custer Hill & its areas. (Unless, of course, we consider some squaw mop-up the final phase.)
And while I agree w/ Steve Wilk that the Cooke/ Keogh link-up is NOT definitive, too much time expired for that NOT to have happened. Besides, the command was unified again on Calhoun Hill. Why would Keogh have stayed behind if he had taken command? If Keogh were to carry out GAC's desires, E, F, & possibly one other company would have been left on Calhoun Hill as a reserve & to await Benteen. Believe me when I tell you, I love Jack Pennington. He was the first person I had read who seriously addressed the crossing of the divide at noon issue & the Reno crossing Ford A timing business. For a while, I even liked his Middle Coulee theory, but I CANNOT accept this Custer-killed-at-Ford B bunk.
I love you guys! Fred.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jan 3, 2006 7:17:00 GMT -6
The problem with Humphrey's book is that there appears to be no proof to back much of what he wrote. He claimed he got interviews on tape (or some kind of recording) but no one has ever come up with the recordings.
Same with Marie Sandoz's claims of GAC running for President and absolutely fathering a child with Monaseetah.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2006 7:45:22 GMT -6
Hey alfuso--
What's w/ Mari Sandoz? I read one of her books some time ago (I no longer have it... DIANE!!! I lost that one, too, in the same divorce!), & I understood her to be one of the pre-eminent historians on the battle. I was dissuaded of that after reading so many others & West absolutely pilloried me for evening mentioning her. West, of course, turned out to be absolutely correct.
What do you know of her?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|