|
Post by shatonska on Jul 17, 2006 13:42:35 GMT -6
PhillyBlair yes kanipe was the account i was referring to , strange no other man noticed the absence of markers
d o harris if some bodies from the ravine were placed on the ridge SOUTH of the ravine , this ravine is cemetery not deep ravine
if deep ravine is the corret place for these fallen soldiers there was no south skirmish line but as many indian accounts say soldiers were constantly pushed along the ridge ,all 5 companies , crazy horse charge broke the line , the first two companies went to lsh , one of these , e company , went on trying to reach the protection of the trees along the river but ended the run in deep ravine , only a fast moving action could bring those soldiers to deep ravine , to me michno or fox theories of a south skirmish line and the possible move to ford d are in great contradiction with those soldiers fallen into deep ravine , if those soldiers were in that area for almost an hour they must have realized that deep ravine was a warrior stronghold , it has no sense trying to escape there , but if they went there following the disintegration on battle ridge it is possible
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 17, 2006 16:37:36 GMT -6
One thing to always keep in mind when considering between the SSL or Deep Ravine theories -- if you were running from 2,000 Indians in the open, perhaps the 100 you could see in the ravine seemed a far better option!
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 17, 2006 17:46:34 GMT -6
Shatonska---You utterly missed the main point. It really doesn't matter whether it was Cemetery or Deep Ravine, although in the context of the interview I think it clear Lynch was referring to Deep Ravine, and may have had his directions wrong. What is important is that a statement was made and accepted by Camp, and later accepted in part by Richard Fox, from a soldier who wasn't there to see anything. Too damned often people who ought to be more careful use a questionable source for no other reason than to develop or support a fragile, even false, argument. (Fox's use of Lynch, as it happens, was unnecessary.)
There are a good many people on this board who are interested for one reason or the other in discovering what did happen, and why. These participants often have wild ideas that truly are uncalculated plunges into the deep end. Ultimately, however, logic, common sense and reasonable evidence calm the aspirations for unfounded speculation. Then there is the majority who seem dedicated to defending a version of what they want to have happened, or seem to have an ego investment in propagating a particular view.
From time to time I drop suggestions on this board that a particular secondary source may not be correct, and before we become overly dedicated to a lordly fountain of knowledge, whoever it may be, we ought occasionally check his or her sources, and not blindly accept what these people have to say regarding the affair on the LBH.
Frederic Benteen clearly stated 28 bodies were found in Deep Ravine. Forget what he said in 1879 at the COI. On the 28th & 29th of June he drew a map of the battlefield, (more a schematic) in which he drew a ravine that could only be Deep Ravine, and included a notation indicating 28 bodies were found there. Now, by my reckoning, a single statement from Benteen, for reasons stated in an earlier post, is worth more than several dozen interpretations from Greg Michno, who was out to prove a point. Did Mr. Michno go where the evidence took him, or did he take the evidence to the conclusion he wanted to reach?
Shatonska, regardless of what you may read above, you are one of my favorite contributors, and I'm happy to see you active again.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 5, 2007 13:45:24 GMT -6
Reading older, interesting threads...
To add to this one, I found some Native witness accounts as to the E Co soldiers dying in the "deep gulch" branch of Deep Ravine...
"The gray horse company was destroyed on the hill near where they went out of sight. The Indians charged in among them. One of the companies retreated down toward a little gulch where they tried to fight under cover. Here the last of the soldiers were killed. " -- Young Two Moon
"At any rate, he said that those were all killed at Custer Hill before those were down along the ravine. These latter, when the others were down, made a break through a narrow gap in the Indian line and ran toward the river trying to escape. They were on foot. The Indians followed them and killed them with war clubs of stone and wooden clubs, some of the latter having lance spears on them. In this pursuit one Indian stumbled into a low place, among the soldiers, and was killed by them." -- Respects Nothing
"The Hunkpapa, Good Voiced Elk, was also near the head of Deep Ravine, and he recalled that "those who broke from [the] end of ridge and tried to get away by running toward the river were dismounted. There was a deep gully without any water in it. I saw many jump over the steep bank into this gully in their effort to escape, but these were all killed. There were probably 25 or 30 of them." See Walter M. Camp Papers, Robert S. Ellison Collection, item 6, Denver Public Library."
"…The eight other soldiers kept coming on, firing until they forced the two Indians out of the ravine. Grabbing up one of the dead soldiers' guns, White Bull scrambled up the wall of the ravine. On the hillside above, he stumbled and fell." -- White Bull
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 5, 2007 15:34:22 GMT -6
How and why would Indians use the word "companies?" Indians used the word "latter," did they? White Bull talked of himself in the third person?
These are, at best, well intentioned translations by people who may have had an agenda nevertheless, and made assumptions as to what the Indians actually meant, which may not have been anywhere near as detailed.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 5, 2007 19:14:36 GMT -6
How and why would Indians use the word "companies?" Indians used the word "latter," did they? White Bull talked of himself in the third person? These are, at best, well intentioned translations by people who may have had an agenda nevertheless, and made assumptions as to what the Indians actually meant, which may not have been anywhere near as detailed. All very true...so what is your point? That you are an English teacher? I doubt the Natives, or their translators, care much. <g> Make sure that their descendents know of their ancestor's deficiencies in the English language...after all, it is the language of the victors! Maybe that explains why we sent their children all to English schools? So they could properly relate their stories of how they killed Custer! Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 5, 2007 19:22:15 GMT -6
The point's rather obvious. You'd be foolish to assume these are the words of, or even the views of, the person to whom they are credited, despite the quotation marks. Since they lied about that - they can't be quotations - they might lie about else or at least have gotten it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Apr 6, 2007 7:31:04 GMT -6
The point's rather obvious. You'd be foolish to assume these are the words of, or even the views of, the person to whom they are credited, despite the quotation marks. Since they lied about that - they can't be quotations - they might lie about else or at least have gotten it wrong. DC, Aye...warning well taken. And this is true of ALL history, and all news reports today. Anyone in politics can well understand this truism. <g> Clair
|
|