|
Post by d o harris on Jan 30, 2006 7:59:55 GMT -6
According to Mark Kellogg Custer was offered the scout but declined. Kellogg likely got his information from Custer. I'm not up on the military niceties of that time, but it seems that whenever half or more of a regiment was given an assignment the officer commanding has the option of leading the detached element. It was through the exercise of this privelege that Nelson Miles initially gained field command in 1876. Regardless of Custer's prerogatives, whatever they may have been, I think Terry would have found a way to overcome them. It was the better part of wisdom for Terry to send Reno rather than Custer, given what Terry wanted the scout to do and not to do. Terry expected--wanted--the scout to find no Indians. He certainly didn't want to look for Indians West of the Tongue River, even if a live trail led that direction. Terry already had developed a plan for operations on the Rosebud. He obviously wanted the scout led by a commander who would obey the orders as written. Terry was looking for compliance, not initiative.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 30, 2006 9:44:40 GMT -6
Interesting take, D. O. ... So would you contend that Terry was wrong to change his plans in the light of the new information Reno brought back? Maybe I'm being simple-minded, but I'd thought finding the Indians, wherever they might be, was what was seen as the really diffcult part of the operation -- a needle-in-haystack job. That's quite a "what if", come to think of it, isn't it. If Reno had followed his orders to the letter -- would the whole campaign have fizzled out as a damp squib? Billy, re Benteen: there was another daughter, Fannie, who died in the winter of '73, according to this: americanhistory.about.com/library/prm/blcuster4.htmBenteen blamed Custer (of course) for barring his leave, but someone on another thread, ages ago, pointed out that it would have been Terry, not Custer, who'd have made the decision. If so, maybe it was for the same good military reasons that D. O. points out in his earlier post; presumably it would have left Stanley's Stockade with only a lieutenant to command the guard?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 30, 2006 12:53:20 GMT -6
Wouldn't it have been possible for Custer to put in a good word for Benteen so he could get his leave?
PS: Benteen lost 4 out of 5 children to a possible hereditary disease that may have been past on to them by Benteen. If Benteen knew this it may have been a reason for the way he was.
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Feb 1, 2006 10:23:21 GMT -6
d o harris
I've read that Sheridan wasn't all that polite in is dismissal of Reno's request.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Feb 1, 2006 14:40:24 GMT -6
alfuso
Sheridan to Reno, April 17, 1876: "General Terry has entire charge of the expedition. I do not feel like interfering with his plans." (Quoted by Gray, CC, pp87)
This is as about as polite as Sheridan could be, under the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Feb 3, 2006 2:20:43 GMT -6
Elisabeth---first things first. Listening on my car radio I heard a report that a poll had been taken in England to determine the 10 baddest people who lived in England the last 1,000 years. Jack the Ripper was number one, and that's hard to argue with. But number two was Thomas Becket. Thomas Becket, the second baddest? Tell me it ain't so.
When Terry sent Reno out he already knew, based on Bradley's scouts, that the Indians had moved from the Tongue to the Rosebud. If Terry had followed the Reno scout with his plan for operations on the Rosebud the best result would have been a waste of four or five days, and, at worst, could have resulted in a worse disaster than the LBH. If Reno followed his written orders to the letter the Rosebud plan would not have been adequate. It was based on information that was two weeks old at the time Terry drew the plan, three weeks old when Terry would have unleashed his forces, and it was implicitly based on the curious assumption that the Indians would be found on the 20th or 21st of June very near to the place Bradley had spotted them on May 27.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Feb 3, 2006 2:39:34 GMT -6
One thing I believe is evident. From the time the Dakota column reached the Powder River, if not earlier, until he turned Custer loose on 6/22 Terry kept GAC leashed. When the column reached the Powder, about 3:30 P. M., 6/7 Terry already had a plan for a 10-14 day mission for the 7th that would take the regiment on a movement of 250-300 miles to the South and Southwest. Custer would command the entire reg't, but Terry would accompany. This movement would be undertaken without the assistance of any scouts familiar with the area. Terry obviously felt there was something out there that justified the risk, but just to keep matters calm he was going with Custer. June 8 was spent breaking wagon mules to carry packs and training troopers to be packers. The mission was to begin June 9. Late on the morning 6/8 Terry received a message from the camp at the mouth of the Powder. Messengers to Gibbon at the mouth of the Tongue had been turned back by hostiles on the North Bank of the Yellowstone. Terry went to the Yellowstone, took the Farwest to confer with Gibbon, and settled on the Reno scout. This was the second time in three days Terry had avoided turning Custer loose, whether intentional or not.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 3, 2006 3:39:54 GMT -6
Intriguing stuff, D.O. I must re-read the Darling book. (Was it Darling, or Gray, who suggested the Bradley sighting was in any case largely ignored?) Certainly the impression from Darling is that Terry had his doubts about Custer ... And there are other undercurrents as well. This whole pre-June 22nd period is full of significance, I'm sure you're right about that. Yup, must get back to the books today. On a more frivolous note: the poll is real!! Unbelievably. Completely nuts. Here's a bit more info on it: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4663032.stm
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Feb 3, 2006 5:24:03 GMT -6
DO, I believe Terry's original plan was 9 companies of the 7th for that maneuver, and the remaining 3 moving to join Gibbon. And Custer had already taken half of the regiment on a scout of the Little Missouri (I believe that's the watershed) before the Reno scout took place.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Feb 3, 2006 6:30:49 GMT -6
Elisabeth---Gray is quite hard on Gibbon for not keeping Terry up on the latest. Gibbon only mentioned Bradley's sighting of 5/27 as a P.S. and in language that suggested he did not put much store by it. Some of the officers of the command openly ridiculed Bradley's claims, and when the Reno Scout confirmed Bradley the young officer went to the officer's mess and virtually challenged his detractors to a stand up and knock down. One thing I do not understand is why, once Bradley made the initial discovery, he was not allowed to followup and keep track of the village? Even if Gibbon felt it a ghost sighting, a followup would have revealed the truth. It may be that a village so close would require Gibbon to move after it, and he was not so inclined, and therefore did not wish confirmation. He had twice attempted a crossing of the Yellowstone with little to show for it except drowned horses. In the correspondence of both Terry and Hughes it is mentioned that Reno returned without justification, which certainly implies his disobedience could have been justified. Hughes' complaint was that Reno hadn't followed the trail far enough to determine which direction it eventually led. In the writings of Gibbon there is at least a glimmer that Reno may have been expected to go to the Rosebud.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Feb 3, 2006 6:55:22 GMT -6
El Crab---The disposition of troops you mention is correct--9 with Custer and three assigned to Gibbon. This, I believe, was done under the expectation that Gibbon was ikely to strike the village first, since they clung to the believe that the Indians would be located on the lower Rosebud. Custer's scout of the Little Missouri didn't involve much more than forty miles, I believe. If Custer had been there in place of Reno what do you think he would have done? I can't see him turning back. On the other hand, if Custer had led the scout when he found the village site on the Tongue, about a month old, perhaps he would have returned to Terry with the information that the Indians had gone West a month past.
I liked your message on another thread mentioning going to original sources, and challenging footnotes, etc. It is mastering the material, rather than being mastered by it, a comment I made elsewhere that seemed to offend some. A few weeks ago you mentioned you had acquired Sgt. Windolph's book, I Fought With Custer. On page 111 there is a facsimile of the front page of the NY Herald, July 8, 1876, that includes a map of the Yellowstone region. You'll need a magnifying glass, but find Gibbon's route to the the battlefield, then consider how could the Herald have come up with such an idea on July 8, if not from information released from the office of the Commander, Division of the Missouri. Terry's report of 7/2, telegraphed from Bismarck late 7/5, clearly states Gibbon's march was to the mouth of the LBH.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 23, 2006 10:27:15 GMT -6
Thanks for this. So did young Lt. Crittenden get to come along as a consolation prize, I wonder? Which brings up two questions I had been meaning to ask but had forgotten until last night. I was looking through the 20th Infantry regimental returns and got to 1876 and started trying to find out when Crittenden left the regiment on detached service. Turns out that he got the orders on May 12, 1876 and left the company on May 14th. Not a lot of time for familiarity with a new regiment, eh? Also, in Heitman's Register of the U. S. Army, there are eleven Crittenden's listed as having been officers in the Army. All but one, including the Crittenden of LBH, were born and appointed from Kentucky. The other one was born in Alabama and appointed from Indiana. Also, looking through their data, I am intrigued by the record of William Logan Crittenden who was a brevet then second Lieutenant in the 5th Inf. from July 1, 1845 to his resignation on March 1, 1849. What intrigues me is that Heitman has this comment: "Shot by Spanish authorities 16 Aug 1851.) Does anyone have the details of that story? Be good, Billy
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 23, 2006 12:33:51 GMT -6
Billy
There's a fair amount of infromation on William Logan Crittenden in "Last of Their Class" by James S, Robbins. Crittenden was the last in the West Point class of 1845. He, like Lt Crittenden of Co. L, was a member of the Crittenden family of Kentucky. William L. Crittenden was the nephew of Lt Crittenden's grandfather. The grandfather was the Crittenden of the "Crittenden Compromise" and had a son who was a Conferderate general and a son (J.J.'s father) who was Union general.
I haven't read the book yet, but it seems that after leaving the Army, William L became a filabusterer, a group of American adventurers American should be proud of. He got involved in an effort to free Cuba from Spain. The effort failed and he was executed in Cuba.
rch
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 23, 2006 12:53:26 GMT -6
"American adventurers," recalling sailing around the world or climbing mountains, is something of a deflective misnomer, and we ought not be all that proud of these guys. They were out to accumulate fame and fortune by means of the expansion of slavery, perhaps as part of the United States, perhaps not, and no different than the Conquistadors only they discovered nothing, had no whiff of religious fervor to elevate their schemes, and were, to a man, utter failures with a high delusional incompetence gene level. They got a lot of people killed to no particular end, good or bad, and we're paying for them to this day, justly or not.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 23, 2006 12:56:50 GMT -6
I refuse to think inside the box about those men. They were Americans and I.m on their side.
rch
|
|