|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 2, 2006 9:08:35 GMT -6
Would any of you take your wife and kids along on a military campaign?
The opening of the Bozeman Forts was still in negotiations when they broke down when Red Cloud found out the military was already coming regardless of the outcome of the negotiations.
Red Cloud stormed out of the meeting vowing a war. Once the military started building forts they were met with consistant attacks and resistance. Wouldn't it have been wise to get women and kids out then when a clear and present danger was real?
As for the Custer relatives along for the ride . . . wouldn't that have been an extra burden on Custer? He was already in hot water with Grant, was critical of the Belknap scandal, forced to beg to be returned to his command. He didn't need the additional worry of his younger brother and a not-so-healthy Autie to think about.
If . . . and its a big IF . . . Custer altered his plan of attack while waiting for Boston to show up then it was a fatal mistake. If Boston wasn't on the campaign or Autie all Custer had to worry about was finding the Indians.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 2, 2006 9:12:10 GMT -6
I've long claimed that nepotism is a likely culprit and came back to bite Custer hard that day. But we'll never know.
They weren't taking their family on a campaign, but to a new home, protected and armed. Nobody was misled, nobody was dense to the dangers. They took the chances, which statistically weren't high, were they?
Benteen's guys may also have been higher than Custer's, giving them a sight advantage. I can't recall, but it also was my understanding that referred to the early part of the scout. The shots and cheers heard later could have been Reno's, I suppose, as well.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 2, 2006 9:16:06 GMT -6
DC:
Send . . . allow . . . obviously a difference in wording. But of course you like playing word games.
The risk was slight? Indians seriously threatened the soldiers on a continual basis, civilians were not allowed to use the Bozeman Trail unless they were heavily armed and had a large contingent along and even then they were attacked.
Warriors came very close to over running soldiers during the Wagon Box and Hayfield Fights.
And then there was Fetterman and his 80 men. I wouldn't call the events that took place a slight risk. Why would Carrington order women and children into the powder room if Indians were about to storm the fort?
Apparently you are the only one who thinks it was a "slight risk"
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 2, 2006 9:22:45 GMT -6
We're only talking about the soldiers' families, and there are no statistics that look awful, are there? Using words correctly is no word game, which is probably a shock to the poster who used "opportunistically" for "optimistically." You imply the Army was negligent in allowing families to go to forts on the Bozeman. If so, there would be higher casualty figures to support that contention. There aren't, it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Aug 2, 2006 9:27:31 GMT -6
That reasoning is like ignoring the known threats prior to 9/11 . . . it couldn't happen . . . but it did.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 2, 2006 9:35:23 GMT -6
Actually, the negotiations broke down when Carrington and the 18th Inf. were spotted approaching Ft. Laramie (location of the treaty conference). The 18th had left from Ft. Kearney, Nebraska on May 19th and arrived "in the vicinity" of Ft. Laramie on June 14th. They had women and children in tow at that time.
After the creation of the forts (Phil Kearny and C. F. Smith) and realization that a state of war existed, at least four other women traveled to the forts. Lt. Grummond's wife, Lt. Burk's wife and female servant/maid (to fort C. F. Smith) and the wife of an enlisted man. I am not certain but think that Lt. Templeton's wife may have been there also, or some other officer's wife-this was the affair at Crazy Woman Creek in which Lt. Daniels was killed-or at least his death was the first incideent of the affair. I will look in Margaret's book to see which women she mentions were at Phil Kearny. The same with Lt. Burk's wife's book.
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 2, 2006 9:35:49 GMT -6
That's nonsense. There's no remote syllogism.
The Army allowed soldiers to bring their families, and didn't make them or deceive them into it, given it was an expense. The risks were known. They didn't "send them" or mislead them. Everyone knew the risks, weighed it, and went.
Perhaps Markland would know, but post-Civil War what was the slaughter and torture rate by Indians of soldiers' families at forts? I believe zero, but it's a supposition. I doubt any member of a Fetterman Fiasco member's family slapped their forehead when their husband/father was killed and said "They never told us fighting Indians was dangerous! How could this happen?" They knew. And they knew their own risks which, as it turned out again, were not so high.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 2, 2006 9:40:11 GMT -6
Markland doesn't know the exact figures but does know enough to state unequivocably that more Army wives and children died from disease than from Indian warfare. And by wives, I am including the non-commissioned officers' & enlisted men's wifes, often the laundresses.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 2, 2006 9:42:40 GMT -6
DC, Godfrey states that it was after they had rejoined the trail from their scout to the left. tinyurl.com/rmozzIt is page 369 of the above article. Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 2, 2006 10:08:47 GMT -6
I know it comes just after he tells of returning to the trail; but I'd always read "During this march on the left" as referring back to the whole scout that he's just described. I could be, and frequently am, wrong, of course!
|
|
|
Post by shan on Aug 2, 2006 10:33:16 GMT -6
Billy,
I read the page with interest, and noted the bit which talks of, --- and here I am paraphrasing, --- we could occasionally see Custers command, particularly the grey horse troop, { The Indians were able to focus on them to in spite of the dust and gun-smoke, and heard several hurrahs and some shots. Now what on earth could that have been about? One would have assumed that at this stage Custer would have wished his command to approach the camp as quietly and discreetly as possible, has anyone any thoughts on this? Shan
|
|
|
Post by markland on Aug 2, 2006 10:35:01 GMT -6
You wrong? Perish the thought dear lady.
I read it as when Benteen's command was back on the trail but his wording is definitely open to various interpretations. Another complication is that they were following Reno's trail, which was to the left of the creek/stream/long puddle.
Be good,
Billy
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 2, 2006 10:56:46 GMT -6
Ah, I'd overlooked that. Damn. Ambiguity everywhere.
Let's see if timing solves this. Gray has Benteen rejoining the trail at 2.32; by that time, Custer is well beyond the Lone Tepee (timed there at 2.15). By 2.43, Custer is giving Reno the order to charge. Could Godfrey and Benteen have seen Custer's men from where they rejoined the trail at 2.32?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 2, 2006 11:30:43 GMT -6
Benteen places it early in the scout, and Godfrey's wording doesn't place it at the end. He just says "During the..." I don't see how it would be possible for Benteen to be able to see Custer's guys on the way back unless Custer was stopped for a significant period.
|
|