|
Post by fred on Feb 4, 2006 15:10:20 GMT -6
Crab--
Martini would have been 66 in 1919. Does that guy look 66? I guess maybe he does. I still like my choice for Varnum, as well, but I think "rch" may be right; these may be Civil War guys. Some of them look way too old. From the left, look at # 1, # 3, # 5.
Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Scout on Feb 4, 2006 20:03:09 GMT -6
Yes, it could be veterans of the Civil War....Michigan Brigade....the emblems on their hats do look more like CW than any kind of Indian Wars. Although the photo says the 43rd reunion in 1919....43 from 1919 is....1876. Dunno. But it is the 'New York Times Enquirer'
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Feb 4, 2006 20:39:01 GMT -6
I was thinking the guy NEXT to the flag holder was Godfrey. I also think the second from left is Windolph. And I might be stretching it but the guy directly behind the cannon with glasses resembles Goldin.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 4, 2006 20:52:52 GMT -6
Hey you guys! We may all be wet or we may all be correct. Look at the caption: "The last members of Gen. George Armstrong Custer's command gather for their 43rd annual reunion in September 1919. The cannon is forged from bits of brass found on the battlefield of Custer's Last Stand."
The caption may have gotten the date wrong, the "43rd annual reunion." Why couldn't these guys be from Custer's Michigan outfit, all standing around the LBH cannon? After all, the cannon is merely a memento of their Civil War commander, regardless of its origins. There's nothing that says that couldn't be, right? Or is that too far-fetched? Besides, what nags me here, are the hat badges & the fact that the caption says "The last members...." In 1919, there were a helluva lot more LBH survivors than just these 11 or 12, but 11 years later, most of those guys were dead.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 5, 2006 3:24:55 GMT -6
Yes, "Custer's command" could well be his CW command. In fact, wouldn't it be more likely to say "last survivors of LBH" if that's who they are? They do look very, very ancient.
There's a photo of Godfrey in old age in Graham, Custer Myth, and it's just as you all say: he's slim. (Moustache still rampant, though.) There's also a pic of Martini in old age. And Edgerly ditto. Pages 120, 292 and 216 respectively. None of them quite looks like anyone in this picture ...
|
|
|
Post by schrack on Feb 5, 2006 5:50:46 GMT -6
The gentleman on the right is wearing a G.A.R membership badge, eagle at the top. The M.O.H at the time had the eagle attached to the five pointed star below the ribbon and attachment device. The hats pins are G.A.R. In my opinion if these men were Indian War veterans they would be wearing Indian Campaign Medals. Is that the White House they are standing in front of ?
Doug
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 5, 2006 7:07:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2006 7:21:35 GMT -6
Hey Doug!
I agree! The badges, to me, are a give-away. The MOH, though, is a problem & you may be able to solve it. I have a book called The Civil War Catalog, edited by Antony Shaw. It's by something called Courage Books (an imprint of Running Press) out of Philadelphia & London, 2003. On pages 290 & 291, there are pictures of a variety of medals, many of them GAR stuff, others belonging to various veterans groups. On the far right appear 2 Medals of Honor-- the only 2 items in boxes-- authorized by Uncle Abe. I believe the rest of the stuff is just hoopla folderol. The 2 MOHs, however, are interesting. The bottom one is clearly a naval award. The top one has the eagle directly above & attached w/ rings to the star. Above that, you have the cloth, red, white & blue flag field (no stars on the blue), & above that there appears a small badge w/ the U.S. shield.
What's interesting here, is that the big fellow on the right in the NY Times photo is wearing neither[/b] of these medals, but is wearing a similar looking medal that seems to be pictured in this book of mine, but is in the organization section. In other words, a MOH look-alike, w/ the spread-winged eagle above the cloth field. In other words again, it's not the MOH he's wearing.
Now the test becomes to check pictures of Tom Custer to see if this book is correct & to see if there's a difference in TWC's MOH & the big guy's.
Best regards, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2006 10:44:13 GMT -6
Oh, & Doug, I don't know if that's the White House, though I doubt it. You can usually tell from the windows because of the decorative capitols above the frames. These are covered with bunting, which leads me to believe it is July 4, 1919. Either that or they're playing the World Series next door!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Feb 5, 2006 12:40:37 GMT -6
For a "Brief History of the Grand Army of the Republic" see suvcw.org/gar.htm. Note the GAR insignia on the hats, and I think the man on the far right is wearing a GAR ribbon/medal, not the MOH. The photo caption was written by The Times, so the caption writer may have taken many liberties, including dubbing it the 43rd reunion. As Fred pointed out, it would not be the first time The Times got it wrong. The guy who is fourth from the left sure looks familiar -- or is it that he looks so darn mean? Unfortunately, I can't blow up the photo without losing the detail, and I am not going to send The Times $195!
|
|
|
Post by schrack on Feb 5, 2006 13:08:01 GMT -6
Fred There are several variations of the G.A.R. membership badge, I believe four or five . One of the early designs was too close to the M.O.H and it was re-designed. I am looking at a period photo of Tom Custer wearing both of his worn oh the chest. In 1917 a small ring was added on the back of the brooch allowing it to be worn from a cravat around the neck. All M.O.H. designs had the eagle below the ribbon attached to the five pointed star fom 1863 to after the turn of the century. The naval design did not use an eagle, they used an anchor. However I am getting ahead of my self. I have seen in photos of men wearing their G.A.R membership badge (early M.O.H. design) where the ribbon probably was torn and the eagle was pinned through the ribbon giving it a similar look. Not the case in the photo we are looking at. Clearly a G.A.R. membership badge.
Doug
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2006 14:05:30 GMT -6
Doug--
Have you seen that book, the one I referred to? It's very good.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Feb 6, 2006 12:25:25 GMT -6
Dear Fred,
Last month, after purchasing the book in the early 60's, I finally finished my Complete Sherlock Holmes. I am all Holmesed out.
I am an American. In a pinch or when in the thrall of a Churchill speach, I own to being an Anglo-Saxon. When I do so, I am the whole hyphenated thing. I am not a prefix. The use of the prefix "anglo" as if it were a word has slithered into the English language and will undoubtedly continue to be repose therein. However you will not here it used thus: "What a wonderful thing the Anglo world did beween 1939 and 1945 to save human civilization." I doubt you will ever hear anyone exclaim, "Gee, aren't Anglos nice!"
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 6, 2006 17:07:19 GMT -6
rch--
Umm-m-m. Okay... I agree w/ you about the Sherlock Holmes stuff. I've read the whole series at once myself... but the rest? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are driving at.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by bubbabod on Feb 11, 2006 21:38:13 GMT -6
Regarding the tall fellow on the right and the heighth of other members of the 7th, let's not forget that George Wallace was, if memory serves me, 6'7". There's a famous group picture taken of the Custer Clan, I think at Ft. A. Lincoln, and Wallace is shown on the far left standing on the ground and he's still taller than most of those standing on the steps. In the NY Times, of course, it is not him because he was killed at Wounded Knee.
|
|