|
Post by douglas on Jul 31, 2006 16:18:25 GMT -6
Dr Fox in Archaeology, History, etc says that a regiment's headquarters consisted of a commander, and both an aide and an adjutant as well as enlisted personnel.pg 141.
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Jul 31, 2006 19:15:54 GMT -6
I can think of another good reason to have TWC assigned to the HQs staff and that is to keep an eye on their little brother and nephew. Who better than Tom, once freed of company responsibilites and being family and all, to supervise a couple of wild and wooly youths. I would imagine the other officers and NCOs appreciated not being assigned that responsibility.
George
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Aug 1, 2006 8:34:41 GMT -6
I have a bit of a problem with your theory, George. What kind of supervision does a twenty-eight year old (Boston) need? And I don't think it's realistic to assign a company *captain* to do that duty. Granted, Harry was a kid; perhaps Bos was his caretaker ... ?
I think the idea that either GAC had TWC as an aide or that TWC had come to LSH for some kind of ad hoc officer's call (even one where they state, "we're all gonna die, do something!") type of thing is much more digestible!
Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by George Mabry on Aug 1, 2006 9:58:04 GMT -6
Maybe so Leyton. The way I was looking at it was that the closer the 7th moved toward a combat situation, the closer GAC would have drawn Boston and Reed. Although Boston was no kid by biological standards, he had no combat experience and if I remember correctly wasn't he somewhat frail and certainly no outdoorsman? I can easily see Custer, being Custer, wanting that family unit close by and under his wing.
Granted it seems strange that GAC, or anyone for that matter, would include non-military family members in one of the assaulting battalions. Common sense would tell you to put them in a more non-combat role such as in the pack train. But common sense doesn't always work does it? Personnally, a combat operation is not a place I would want two inexperienced relatives to be. Custer felt differently. Wasn't the mindset of just about everyone when this expedition started out was that it was going to be a lark...a big adventure?
Anyway, it was just a though.
George
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 1, 2006 10:40:41 GMT -6
George M:
Re: Boston and Autie seeking "adventure"
The military back in those days thought Indian campaigns were picnics. One of the most famous "picnics" was the opening of Forts along the Bozeman Trail in 1866. Soldiers' wives and children went along . . . into what was then a wilderness with the most war-like Indians on the North American continent. Most of us know the events surrounding the opening of Fort Phil Kearney, the Fetterman Massacre, and the Wagon and Hayfield Fights. Conditions got so bad after Fetterman's rout that Carrington ordered the women & children into the powder room with orders to blow it up if Indians over ran the fort!
The only good thing about it was the diaries and memories of the women and children . . . most importantly Margaret Carrington and one of the kids (forget who) who past on their stories.
How on earth could the military send women and children into dangerous situations like that and to include Boston & Autie who had no experience for their "assigned" positions?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 1, 2006 11:35:25 GMT -6
Nobody thought them picnics or anything but risky business, and it was voluntary. But that was accepted. How many women or children, by the way, of the soldiers' families in the Bozeman Trail forts were killed by Indians? Zero, I believe. This is Shark Week! programming of the dangers.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 1, 2006 11:35:27 GMT -6
Well, they were strapped for entertainment in those days ... Remember First Bull Run, and all the picnic parties out from Washington that clogged up the retreat! I suppose until newsreels -- or at least until Buffalo Bill's Wild West show -- the only way you could experience these things was by taking your life in your hands. The Extreme Sport of the 19th century.
Nothing to do with the thread, but I just watched on TV a very old movie, Tomahawk (1951), that does (I thought) a pretty decent job on the Fetterman massacre. Plenty of nonsense -- e.g. Monaseetah's along as Jim Bridger's sister-in-law after surviving a Sand Creek massacre in 1862 in which Black Kettle was killed (send for the aspirin) -- but it's OK. Nicely balanced between army and Indians; a lovely Red Cloud; Fetterman not portrayed as the idiot/villain of myth; some gorgeous action scenes; and some great minutiae of army life, like the mail call and so on. (Plus a very young Rock Hudson making an impact with just a couple of lines.) Not a great movie, but full of good stuff for the likes of us ...
Apologies for the diversion.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 1, 2006 11:53:13 GMT -6
I'm sure that Fox is wrong about an aide or ADC being included in the headquarters of a regiment. There is no indication in Heitman's tables of organizations that such a position exited. There is no indication that any officer served in such a capacity the last time the 7th Cavalry's regimental HQ was in the field during the Washita Campaign. Fred Grant accompanied the Yellowstone and Black Hills Expeditions but did so as Gen. Sheridan's ADC.
I think if Tom Custer was apointed as an ADC that fact would have been published in an order, so that every officer of the 7th would know that Tom Custer spoke with the authority of any other staff officer.
Has the 7th's Order Book been examined for such an order?
Are there any statements by any of the surviving officers that indicated Tom Custer was serving as an ADC?
During the RCOI Reno's attorney asked Girard about Tom Custer's duties. This was in connection with the movement of the regiment to the Crow's Nest. Girard said he thought Tom Custer was commanding his company. I don't think Gilbert ever asked the question of anyone else, nor did Reno testify that Tom Custer was serving as an aide. As an aside, I think Gilbert was trying to protect his client. Reno, though second-in-command, never knew who ordered the regiment forward. My money is on Keogh, who was probably Officer of the Day.
August Kautz in "The 1865 Customs of the Service for Officers of the Army" wrote that a lieutenant "may be required by the Captain to attend to all the practical duties incumbent upon the Captain himself." (p. 22) I read that to mean that the lieutenant might for varying lenghts of time be in charge of the company but that the Captain still commands it. The captain might march with his brother or like Keogh ride with Cooke down to Reno's fording place. In any case the Captain was near enough to his company to resume control.
To the enlisted men of the company it might look like the lieutenant was in command.
I don't know why Tom Custer didn't go on the Reno Scout, but if he was acting as an ADC, it should have increased the likelihood that he go on the scout as his brother's representative.
rch
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 1, 2006 12:02:22 GMT -6
Whether any soldiers' women or children were killed is far from the point. To send them out with their husbands/fathers is mind-boggling. Apparently the higher ups didn't learn anything from all the Indian fighting that had taken place starting from the East and going out to the Western Theater. They should have known women and children were not always shown mercy by Indians or at the best taken into captivity.
We can only assume it was arrogance and over-confidence by the military/government in thinking that the Big Big US Army was invincible and you could an take non-com relatives along for the ride.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 1, 2006 12:07:35 GMT -6
rch --
Really?! That's most interesting. If Keogh ordered the regiment forward -- however sensibly -- that's two black marks against him. The hardtack box issue (as he was i/c packtrain) and now this. Which might have impact on whether or not he was given Co. C as a courtesy in deference to his rank, having been deprived of Co. B.
On the other hand, that conflicts with him being in good enough odour with Custer to get to go in with Reno (as Edgerly speculated was the idea). Grrrrrr. Nothing's simple.
|
|
|
Post by rch on Aug 1, 2006 13:48:06 GMT -6
Elisabeth,
Custer was supposed to be angry either because his brother and brother-in-law left their companies or because the regiment moved forward. Girard said it was because the regiment moved. I think it is probable that Custer found out who ordered the move and that the movement was explained to his satifaction. I don't want to go to the books right now, but as I recall Custer, at the officer's call after his return from the Crow's Nest, mentioned that Keogh had reported the lost hardtack box incident.
Re: battalion organization
Although Scott seemed to have worked out the seniority sceme for the Custer battalion, I don't think it works out for the regiment as a whole. This seems to apply as well to the organization on the march from Ft. Lincoln. This is one of the reasons I asked the question about the relative seniority of French and Yates on another thread. There may be things about the relative seniority of the Captains that is not obvious from their dates of rank. That's why an 1875 of 1876 edition of the Army Register might be helpful.
rch
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 2, 2006 1:35:09 GMT -6
Is it possible that there was something a bit unconventional about the battalion assignments on the 25th? According to Benteen, we have Custer and Cooke figuring it out on paper for something like a quarter of an hour. If it had been done purely by seniority, they'd have that in their heads and wouldn't need to make calculations. So maybe it wasn't done by the book?
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 2, 2006 8:41:47 GMT -6
Crzhrs wrote:
and
Horse, you are mixing apples and oranges up comparing the Bozeman Trail "campaign" with the Montana column campaign. You have to face the fact that Sherman himself urged the officers of the 18th Inf. to take their wives along while the Bozeman Trail forts were being built. This was because of two reasons: 1) Peace existed at that time between the Sioux and white men 2) A government peace committee was to negotiate "rights" to buid forts along that trail.
The Montana campaign was neither of the above. It was a campaign designed to move the free-runners, whether by force, coercion or negotiation to the reservations. The size of the Army forces prove that the Army thought force or coercion would be necessary to accomplish the task.
As far as Boston is concerned, likely GAC had only to concern himself with preventing Boston from trying to prove that he was as brave/reckless/fearless as his older brothers. The only thing which surprises me is that there was not a scout assigned to ride with Boston to prevent him from getting in over his head.
As far as what Benteen saw, remember Godfrey's comments from "Custer's Last Battle," "During this march on the left we could see occasionally the battalion under Custer, distinguished by the troop mounted on gray horses, marching at a rapid gait. Two or three times we heard loud cheering and also some few shots, but the occasion of these demonstrations is not known."
If Godfrey with Benteen's force could see GAC's column, it seems likely that the reverse occurred. Perhaps that is why Tom was with GAC, to report that Benteen had regained the trail and was behind, albeit at some distance?
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 2, 2006 8:59:37 GMT -6
Crzhrs says: Whether any soldiers' women or children were killed is far from the point. To send them out with their husbands/fathers is mind-boggling. Apparently the higher ups didn't learn anything from all the Indian fighting that had taken place starting from the East and going out to the Western Theater. They should have known women and children were not always shown mercy by Indians or at the best taken into captivity.
We can only assume it was arrogance and over-confidence by the military/government in thinking that the Big Big US Army was invincible and you could an take non-com relatives along for the ride.
Nonsense. The Army didn't "send them." The Army allowed them to take a knowing risk. And they knew the risks. The soldiers knew it. The soldiers' families knew it. Everyone knew it. And statistically the risk wasn't significant, Michno's hysteria to the contrary, and in any case a risk worth taking, especially at such a planned comparitively lavish fort as Phil Kearny.
And yes, it's important that zero casualties occured among the group in question, given that it means the risk was, indeed, slight. Given the diseases and horrors of urban living, probably preferable.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 2, 2006 9:08:13 GMT -6
It's not terribly clear from the way he's phrased it, but isn't Godfrey referring to the early part of the scout -- just after they've left Custer? Benteen makes a similar reference, and from the context, his is plainly about the start of the scout. "The last glimpse we had gotten of Gen. Custer's column was the sight of the gray-horse troop at a gallop", Benteen-Goldin Letters, p. 183.
|
|