|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 24, 2006 11:38:37 GMT -6
Walt can probably answer this ...
Because Tom Custer died at LSH, we take it for granted that he was riding with HQ throughout the 25th. Harrington commanded Co. C on Reno's scout, did he not, so there was clearly no sense that Tom was vitally needed. But on the other hand, it's Tom who (allegedly) sends Kanipe with the message to McDougall/Benteen -- which could suggest that he still regarded himself as commanding Co. C on the day.
Is it possible that things aren't as clear-cut as we think? E.g. could Tom have belatedly taken it into his head to join his brothers, perhaps after the Calhoun Hill halt? Or even -- dare one suggest it? -- after/during the Co. C rout? It could help explain the collapse if Co. C was suddenly deprived of 50% of its officers. However good Harrington may have been, it would take a lot to exercise command and control over a company that had just seen its commanding officer decide he'd rather be elsewhere ...
I hasten to say that this isn't a theory -- only a question!! It's just that we tend to take TWC's HQ role as fact purely because of where he died. Are we right to do so? Admittedly, he was doing ADC-type things earlier in the day (such as reporting the hardtack box incident); but is there any more evidence? Or are we in danger of jumping to conclusions?
|
|
|
Post by Jas. Watson on Jun 26, 2006 14:16:48 GMT -6
I agree with you on one big thing...that there are a lot of things we'll just never know--that's the apeeal to the whole thing. I admit that I have wondered the same thing. I know there are a couple others here who are 'C' Company enthusiasts and I bet they too have wondered. I personnally think it somewhat derilict to leave a junior (2nd) Lieut. in charge of a company especially when going into the potential fight of the magnitude they were headed for. Even if on HQ detail for the day I would expect that when they realized what they were 'in for' a good commander would have requested to be with his men. I'm with you in that I think there might have been a little more to this than just coincidence. As to TWC's personal courage, well, he was a two time winner of the Medal of Honor, and it's a rare thing to even get one (like your Victoria Cross), so I don't think we can infer a case of the white feather here.
|
|
kenny
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by kenny on Jun 27, 2006 1:03:23 GMT -6
It is highly likely was he there for a staft meeting.You have to remember that First Lieutentant Smith was there also.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 27, 2006 4:37:12 GMT -6
Most people make the assumption that Smith was there, and not with his company, because he was wounded -- but that's possible, I suppose. But we're still faced with the question of how come TWC's the only officer from the right wing who's still alive to attend such a meeting ...
Jas., I agree that it's highly unlikely he'd show the white feather (though anyone can have a bad day); just looking at all the possibilities. There's something odd about it whichever way you look at it. If he is with HQ, why doesn't he, as you said, still insist on leading his men into battle? And if he's not with HQ throughout, when and why and how does he end up on LSH?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 27, 2006 6:58:53 GMT -6
Maybe GAC was out of action . . . wounded and/or killed and TC possibly distraught came to his aid rather than stay with his company.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 27, 2006 8:58:37 GMT -6
That's my, hardly original, theory as well, Crzhrs.
But I'd also like to suggest, as I have for years, that a nepotistic outfit like Custer's 7th had a formal command structure and an actual one, and the actual would swing into action if family - the ruling unit - was hurt. There would be no need for it to exist, otherwise. I think it did, and the formal second in command was never notified or able to rally, and TWC was the actual adjutant, and Cooke a gofer.
That said, it's important - to me if nobody else - to again restructure the markers according to testimony and photographs. Take out the 20% spurious, move markers into a ravine of choice. When you do that, LSH does not look like a Last Stand with Custer in the middle. It looks like two much depleted strings of men more or less meeting where Custer and TWC were found roughly where the monument is, as if they'd hit a wall of fire when they reached the top and fell.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 27, 2006 9:45:55 GMT -6
Highly reasonable. But again it's intriguing to speculate what effect that might have had on Co. C's performance -- depending on when this happened. (Assuming it did.)
I take it we'd all rule out the Custer-wounded-at-MTF theory, as there's no conceivable reason to lug a wounded Custer on a leisurely circuit from MTF to Calhoun, along Battle Ridge, down to the Ford D area, and up to LSH; it'd be bonkers. Only a Custer functioning and in control would take the decisions that were taken. Any second-in-command -- whether the formal one or the nepotistic one -- stepping in to take over would have done things very differently. Therefore we have to assume (don't we?) that if TWC is with his company and leaves it, he does so at a time when it's either deployed on Battle Ridge, or already fighting. So ... could that be the critical brick that's pulled out of the wall and makes the whole edifice crumble?
DC, you've raised the markers question before, both here and elsewhere, and it's a brilliant notion. It would be a great project for someone to take on. Use something like the McElfresh map, where contours and vegetation are so well defined, and overlay on that the marker information from, say, WCF -- and we'd be looking at the closest approximation to the layout of bodies as seen on the 27th. It could be very, very illuminating. Someone really should do it. You couldn't be persuaded to do it yourself, I suppose ...?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 27, 2006 10:52:11 GMT -6
Maybe TC was going to GAC for orders and/or info to pass on when all hell broke loose and couldn't get back. GAC may have been wounded/killed right at that time when the brothers were talking . . . thus handing over command to TC. GAC dead would cause TC to become enraged and spew his fury on warriors by killing as many before he goes done. Thus the "special" attention paid to his remains after the battle.
The possibilities are endless . . .
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 27, 2006 12:54:27 GMT -6
Well, I HAVE done it: moved 28 markers out of sight into one of the ravines and subtracted 20% spurious, and moved Reed and Boston, and Custer, and strung out the remaining. I did it with the map of markers in WCF and it's very ugly but shows just how different it all looks - far from any sort of 'stand.' Proves nothing, of course.
The worst of all scenarios is a wounded Custer who doesn't cede command. Who'd override him? Who'd risk him surviving after a defeat he hadn't commanded through? Also, suppose they were driven in that direction rather than chose it?
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 27, 2006 22:35:54 GMT -6
Any way you could post it? It'd be great to see.
Agree, that's the worst of all scenarios. Most people seem to think that either wound would have been fatal (well, the head wound obviously would, but the side wound too) so in reality it's unlikely he'd have been in a position not to cede -- but yes, it'd be a brave man who'd stand up to him. Especially, a brave man who'd order a retreat while Custer still thought victory was possible.
Second-worst scenario: Custer incapacitated, and the actual command structure clashing with or overriding the formal one. TWC had done plenty of brave fighting, but had he ever commanded in battle? And a TWC enraged with grief isn't going to make the coolest, most sensible decisions. You could have TWC giving orders that older, wiser heads think are daft; you could have a battalion split in two as to which leader they follow. I don't for a moment think that's what did happen, but the nepotism structure lays the groundwork for that sort of chaos ...
|
|
|
Post by Lawtonka on Jun 28, 2006 8:43:13 GMT -6
I was just thinking about this as I read this thread.
You know, Custer would not have had to have been dead at the time TWC came over. Being a brother, just know he was down and wounded would have been enough to draw him over there if he knew about it or saw him fall.
There is one accound by Wooden Leg or at least in his story about one of the Indian women he recognized Custer and said he was still alive when she reamed his ears out with an awl.
I think you guys are right about the family ties here. I feel sure that the kinship would have overruled the leadership in this case. Certainly, at this point in the fight, doom must have been foremost in everyones mind on that hill.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jun 28, 2006 9:45:03 GMT -6
OK then -- if Tom was with his company, and if the Fox theory is correct, what does this give us as a scenario?
We've got Co. C deployed in two platoons, one under Harrington, one under TWC, to clear warriors off Greasy Grass Ridge. Harrington's platoon (for argument's sake) is the first to go in, supposedly covered by Tom's. At the critical moment, Tom learns (how? by bugle? semaphore? messenger? or by sight?) that GAC's down. Blood being thicker than water, he forgets all about what he's supposed to be doing and dashes off towards GAC. This causes confusion and disarray in Co. C -- compounded if Harrington's also been killed or wounded by now -- and some follow him north (hence the sorrel horses at LSH) while others, especially those on foot, run towards Calhoun. LWM seizes the advantage and pursues, rolling over L and the remnants of C. Co. I now rushes down to the rescue, but LWM's attack has inspired others from all directions, and I is overwhelmed ... and basically it's all Tom's fault!
Well, it's fanciful, I admit, but not impossible; something went badly wrong for C ...
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 28, 2006 9:49:27 GMT -6
And with the possibility of Boston and Autie Reed also being wounded and/or dead, TC may have felt compelled to take command.
If he witnessed the wounding and/or deaths of his relatives it would have caused severe psychological trauma, regardless of one's experience in war. Seeing relatives die is far different than fellow soldiers.
Did it cause TC to become fully enraged or traumatized. Judging from the condition of his remains someone took out extreme revenge on him . . . or was it a sign of contempt by warriors who felt TC gave his life cheaply?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jun 28, 2006 9:52:43 GMT -6
It's ugly, as I say, and not worth putting up. Think of it as an Activity for Summer Camp. Make a copy of LSH's markers from WCF. Subtract any 20% as Reno's spurious markers, white them out or remove in PhotoShop and move folks to where photos and testimony of officers puts bodies, and look at it. The whole feel of it is different, as any battlefield would by removal of 20% alone.
But the stretch of bodies along the southen ridge where no markers are now and photos show the wooden stakes were is what does it. THEN the coagulation of officers at the top looks very strange indeed.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jun 28, 2006 11:50:51 GMT -6
We know that Indians didn't just charge en mass UNLESS they saw an opportunity. If TC left his company to check on his brother/other relatives and Harrington is down that WOULD cause confusion and lack of organization with Company C. Was this the time LWM saw the chance to make a rush?
|
|