|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 10, 2006 11:42:49 GMT -6
Surely one of the purposes in sending Benteen to the left of the column was also to block potential escape routes. Remember Custer is expecting flight not battle. I think Benteen's recall was more based on Custer seeing, from the heights, that the Indians were fleeing Northwards not Westwards which was the direction that Benteen might have been blocking.
Even after Reno and Girard (earlier) indicate that the Indians are coming forward I think Custer still probably interpreted this as an Indian rearguard action to cover the flight of the non-coms.
If Benteen is to act as a blocking force and sweep up the non-coms he meets, then he needs a reasonable force to both capture and then bring in the prisoners. The Crows and other Indian scouts would be more likely to kill than capture non-coms - this was what happened to Gall's family.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 10, 2006 11:58:24 GMT -6
If Indians were escaping they would include warriors with their families, not just non-coms. Benteen would have to engage them with the possibility of non-coms as casualties.
The deaths of non-coms would have resulted regardless of who was chasing Indians. I don't think non-coms would have given up peacefully, there would have been older and young males who would have put up a fight.
|
|
Gumby
Full Member
Posts: 202
|
Post by Gumby on Apr 11, 2006 16:58:36 GMT -6
All of the messengers were killed. Benteen had no reason to wander around in rough country off to the left if not ordered to. Reading Jack Pennington's article in the latest newsletter got me worked up again. He made some rather incredible leaps in his assumptions that Custer gave more explicit attack orders to Reno and Benteen than has ever come to light. He assumes that Custer knew the exact turns of the LBH River so that if Benteen had just continued moving west he would have ended up on Reno's left flank. Not only is his assumption without any basis in fact, it is also forgetting the fact that Benteen would have been about four miles behind Reno, with no idea that Reno's bttn was fighting unsupported. Custer had no knowledge of the river's true course and he could not have seen it from the Crow's Nest. He had no exact knowledge of the village's location. Benteen was nowhere around when Reno received his attack orders and there is no account of any other couriers relaying any such information. The Sergeant Major gave Benteen furhter instructions well before Custer observed the Indians running away and Reno receiving his orders. Pennington also relies on Martin's statement that Custer planned that Benteen would attack in the center. Since this does not jibe with his theory that Benteen was to be on Reno's left he came up with the theory that Custer meant the center of the village, on the west side! Talk about changing the facts to fit the theory. Theories should be based upon facts, not the other way around.
All of this is supposed to have been supressed in order to protect Reno from being court martialed. First, Reno was not very well liked in Army circles before or after the battle, they wouldn't even let him have leave to attend his wife's funeral and see to his son's care! Second, It was too late for Reno to be court martialed for anything he did or didn't do at the LBH! Reno's detractors have already tried to use that as his escape clause when he requested the COI. Third, he was court martialed for other offenses that were probably at least partially trumped up. They results of the court martial would be changed 90+ years later and he was reinstated. Despite Custer's career killing hearsay testimony that pissed off President Grant, Phil Sheridan was still a supporter of Custer's (he passed along Terry's request for Custer's going on the expedition with his own endorsement). This also goes along with the statement that Reno was not well liked enough by the Army to conspire to save him from a disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by dogsoldier on Apr 11, 2006 17:19:16 GMT -6
There is only one way to study this battle, or anything really. Come to it with an open mind and let the facts tell the story. You can tell if someone does this if they entertain details that oppose their view. Additionally, if every opposing thought is incredulously discounted, then that speaks for itself. The best (most useful) history is by historians who tell the story without trying to present a personal agenda. Clearly, this battle polarizes people and those in the middle have to keep their heads down. Pennington wrote a book called THE CUSTER CONTROVERSY, self-published, that I have for several years. I never read it all the way through because it appeared to be so convoluted to me at the time that I decided to give it a go at another time. That time has still not arrived.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Apr 11, 2006 18:10:34 GMT -6
hello dogsoldier
There is only one way to study this battle, or anything really. Come to it with an open mind and let the facts tell the story. You can tell if someone does this if they entertain details that oppose their view. Additionally, if every opposing thought is incredulously discounted, then that speaks for itself. The best (most useful) history is by historians who tell the story without trying to present a personal agenda. Opened mindiness is hard to achieve. Just being here requires some desire or mindset in regards to LBH. Its not a current event yet it fasinates a lot of us. For example who decides what is fact and what are the facts? I am impressed with the amount of expertise displayed here and hope to seek my own truth.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 12, 2006 3:06:18 GMT -6
I thought that the "Benteen was to attack in the centre" idea was clearly part of Martini's attempt later in life to inflate his own role and knowledge and that nobody seriously beleived it.
The evidence that Martini gave at RCOI about going on to the packtrain that was just 150 yds behind Benteen that he later recanted and his later claims to have spoken to Custer about the Bring "ammunition" packs message clearly show him to be a quite unreliable source on many matters of substance. He seems to have hardly understood English at all and was certainly susceptible to fantasy in regards to his own knowledge.
Regards
mike
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 12, 2006 3:38:01 GMT -6
I think the plan was the same of washita, but had to be changed forced by circumstances
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 12, 2006 7:10:16 GMT -6
Funnily enough, I received something just today which suggests that General Miles also espoused the Benteen-to-attack-from-centre theory, as per Pennington's article. It's from the Montana Historical Society achives: an account of the battle written by John Howard, Chief Guide and Scout, District of the Yellowstone, for members of Keogh's family. Howard says his account has been fully endorsed by Gen. Miles, and that Miles furnished many of the particulars.
I don't know if I'm allowed to quote it verbatim, so will play safe and just give the essence of it. He states that Custer's battle-plan was for Benteen to attack from the south-west, Reno to attack from the south, and Custer himself to attack in the centre and cut off the Indians' retreat. Intriguing, eh?
The account has enough obvious inaccuracies in it (the "Bring packs" message being borne by Boston, not Martini; Co. I being commanded by Smith, not Keogh; Cooke an Englishman, not a Canadian; etc) to make all its assertions pretty suspect -- as Edgar I. Stewart points out in his commentary on it. He also, very reasonably, questions just what "particulars" Miles was in a position to furnish, having been at Leavenworth at the time of the battle. It is interesting, though, that Miles should have chosen to reach this conclusion.
Obviously it's one that helps his well-known pro-Custer, anti-Reno/Benteen stance ...
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Apr 12, 2006 7:21:31 GMT -6
not all the pro-Custer are liars and not accurate historians or people. I hope you agree with me.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Apr 12, 2006 7:46:26 GMT -6
Elisabeth--re:22 Lt. Winfield Scott Edgerly, letter to Walter Camp, Custer in '76, p53:(my paraphrase) Custer's idea was that Indians would scatter and run in all directions. Benteen would attack from the SW, Reno from the S, and Custer would go North to cut off escape to the East.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Apr 12, 2006 9:16:08 GMT -6
Of course -- I'd forgotten that Edgerly account.
michigander, sorry if I gave you that impression. What I meant was that, like some other people we could name(!), Miles seemed to think he couldn't support Custer without also viciously attacking Reno and Benteen. His prejudice was so apparent that one has to doubt the objectivity of his interpretations a bit!
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 12, 2006 12:19:51 GMT -6
If I go back to the original question in the thread, I do not think it would make much difference if Benteen was recalled earlier. He turned back to the main trail of his own volition and the only difference would have been that Custer's messenger would have had to travel further to find the already returning Benteen. I suppose the confusion of what the messenger's may or may not have seen (skidaddling) might have been avoided but I do not think that their misinformation actually had much effect.
To be frank I think the only thing that might have made a difference after Custer had set his two subordinates in motion would have been what he chose to do with his own command. If he had either followed through with direct support to Reno in the first place or turned back himself to support Reno after seeing the true scale of the village either from Weir Point or MTC then I think the outcome might have been less dire. Fine-tuning the roles of Reno or Benteen with better communication would just be rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2006 12:39:36 GMT -6
It may have made all the difference if Benteen was recalled when Custer ordered Reno to go after fleeing Indians. I'm not sure how much time had elapsed between Benteen starting his scout and Custer ordering Reno to charge, but it may not have been that much and surely not as long as when Martini was sent back.
I think it was imperative that Benteen know what was going on. He received 2 messengers telling him to keep going but as far as we know nothing about any Custer-Reno battle plan. Thus, Benteen was in the dark about Indians being spotted, running, and Reno's orders and Custer's promise of support.
By not immediately recalling Benteen when Indians were spotted running or at least a message informing him of the plans was a big mistake. It kept Benteen out of action for most of Reno's fight and more than likely the beginning of Custer's fight. All Benteen could do was clean up Reno's mess and leave Custer vulnerable, then get blamed for not coming immediately to Custer's aide. Benteen was in a no-win situation but did what he thought right.
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Apr 12, 2006 13:04:06 GMT -6
Hi Crzhrs Whilst I understand your point about the importance of telling Benteen what was happening, I still do not think it makes any difference. Martini found Benteen after he had rejoined the main trail. Sending him earlier just means he has to go looking for Benteen in the bluffs and valleys and as it happens Benteen is coming anyway.
I think the reason Custer did not recall Benteen earlier was probably because he thought he might still be useful as a blocking force to the SW of where the camp was thought to be. It was only when he sees the size of the camp and the Indians fleeing to the North that he decides that Benteen is more useful closer to hand.
I have been re-reading the accounts given by the Crow scouts in The Custer Myth. They seem to be reasonable clear that Custer already knew Reno was beaten and probably destroyed. Is this generally accepted? If so it explains why Custer did not try to send Reno any message but not why he stayed around so long himself by LSH.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 12, 2006 13:10:55 GMT -6
If for no other reason, Custer should have informed Benteen of the battle plan. Benteen was kept completely in the dark and had no idea that Reno had been ordered to attack fleeing Indians or what Custer intended to do.
Keeping Benteen on his scout may have been OK . . . but some message of Custer's plan should have been relayed to him.
I'm not sure if Martini would have been the one to go looking for Benteen from the Lone Tepee site, but the distance from there to Benteen was far less than from MTC. Once Reno and Custer were committed the separation from Benteen made his command useless for anything but mopping up Reno's rout.
|
|