|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 13, 2006 12:57:01 GMT -6
Per suggestion, a new thread. The first wishful thought is that Custer made it further north than where the monument is.
Evidence is claimed, but none provided. There seems some confusion about where north is. For example, photographs in Where Custer Fell prompt a discussion on page 123 that suggest the photos and other evidence allows soldiers to have advanced "into the current cemetery area and perhaps all the way to the Little Bighorn River." This is relevent because "almost all histories of the battle considered Custer Hill to the be far northern end of the field..." The cemetery is decidedly southwest of the monument, so this baffles. Whatever evidence there exists for a move north is more easily explained by activity known to have happened not involving Custer.
I retain amazement that a military unit on the offensive, generally admitted as outnumbered seven to one, having received oral and visual information of note that the enemy is motivated and annoyed and coming on, is rationally to be thought sane to retain 60% of its sharpshootin' strength "in reserve" on undefensible ground one and a half miles from a crossing point to obtain hostages, and the crossing itself is attempted by only 20% while the remaining company fires leisurely across the river. Or something. This is discussed 'neath furrowed brows as the plan of a West Point officer and, of course, utterly doable except for treason and murder aforethought by his officers. It strikes me this would obviously incite the very behavior that happened.
The evidence for this is based on Indian stories - chain of thought and evidence unknown - bolstered by cartridges (note: I get yelled at for saying cartridges; the correct term is "cases", I've been told) in and around the crossing point.
Having - as sole indication these cases have anything to do with activity within a two hour window one hundred thirty years ago - a date of manufacture previous to the event is less than compelling. Soldiers testified they saw Indians firing weapons across the Custer field from Weir Point. It's possible they used the soldiers' guns. Perhaps probable.
Further, we know after the battle Cheyenne warriors, maybe Sioux as well, dressed in uniforms and rode soldier horses and did so successfully enough to fool both Thomas Weir on the 25th and Terry's advance on the 26th. They even scared the hell out of the women when they rode into camp in formation with the guidons, activity that surely took place in and around where "Ford D" is being lovingly constructed as fact of Custer's offensive. We also have Indian assertions that the riders rid themselves of the items they didn't like on uniform, weapon, saddlery as they rode the area. Detritus now evidence for something else.
We have this known Indian activity that provides ALL the artifacts being swept together as evidence for a dubious Custer offensive. Moves which make no sense, whatsoever, by the way, and are not reflective of the Custer in history.
It strikes me those known activities have to be addressed before the evidence - if such it can be called - is asserted for something else, and that entirely unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 14, 2006 4:17:03 GMT -6
Has anyone who understands sign language, and/or can lip-read Cheyenne(!), ever had a go at interpreting that movie clip of Two Moons? He's filmed standing on LSH, and is gesturing in various directions to describe the fight. With him telling the story actually on the spot, there'd be less risk of confusion over who went where than there is in other accounts ... Maybe the answer lies there?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 14, 2006 8:02:35 GMT -6
DC I believe you were also yelled at for saying "casings" with the comment that there weren't any sausages found on the battlefield. There could be cartridges found or cartridge cases which are a component of a cartridge.
As far as finding cases on the field and used as evidence, I believe if we follow civil law then only a preponderance is needed. It is the difference between finding of fact and most likely to have occurred. The trouble is as you point out there are a lot factors that have influenced this site, including the placement of markers. In order to draw a conclusion only data that supports ones theory is presented which makes it appear most likely to have occurred. I think if you find hundreds of cases even in a contaminated area you can still draw a conclusion but at best you could only formulate a theory.
For example in the marker areas whether fired by troopers or Indians firing into bodies it should still give a proximate area of death to the trooper. It may not indicate how long the trooper fought before dying though.
The lack of evidence does not mean it did not happen. It would have been nice if we had a total count of cartridge cases found on LSH immediately after the battle.
I think in general people believe you are heading north as the go downstream on the LBH river. On my map the river is flowing NW at the location and you would have to travel south and west from most "known" battlefield locations to reach it.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 14, 2006 9:36:14 GMT -6
You're right, I was nailed for saying "casings" rather than cases. I have, however, recovered, and - with a belief in a brighter future - moved on.
"I think in general people believe you are heading north as the go downstream on the LBH river." Seems to be true, but when it appears to be the case in books it should be slapped down, I'd think. This is perhaps how people like Tony continue to think Custer thought Benteen "west" of him, when he was always south. However, it is revealing that if we, with geo-sat tech and accurate maps before us get confused, how easily it could happen to soldiers in testimony. The field is very, very deceiving to the unwary.
I recoil some from the application of legal template over the battle. It inspires the belief that something either criminal or deserving of punishment occured. As both sides were at war and willingly engaged in battle, the rules are way more lax.
And while the lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen, it certainly doesn't mean something did. Further, you have to take what we KNOW to have happened and utilize it to explain artifacts found before we construct new actions totally dependent upon those artifacts. You can't ignore the little actually known to be true, yet this happens in Custerland all the time.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 14, 2006 10:39:56 GMT -6
This has the chance of becoming an interesting and useful thread. I have a few questions to pose. Can anyone---anyone at all---construct a sensible ford D theory without reference to Fox and the archaeological findings? To justify a ford D theory we must suppose Custer completely bereft of any tactical sense to engage in such a time consuming manuever, when time was the last thing he could afford to waste, or we must discover a purpose. And this leads to the hostage theory, that he detached 40% of his command, for some unknown reason holding 60% idle, in order to capture hostages, which he proceeds not to do. The theory is based upon another implicit assumption: The non-combatants gathered West of ford D will, of course, remain in place until it is convenient for Custer to scoop them up. It seems to me this entire scenario, and almost the entire current vision of what happened on Custer field, rests on Richard Fox, and his interpretation of relics. Rebuttals to Fox usually are based on a different interpretation of the same relics. Persons who base interpretations on evidence seem to speak with certainties I feel not justified. Let's ignore the effects of 108 years of rain, snow, melt offs, grazing cattle and herders, hunters, and young Crow boys galloping herds of horses across the field to water at Medicine Tail Ford. Let's ignore the consequences of 108 years of authorized, at least, tolerated, and unauthorized scavenging. But there is one question I should like to have answered.
What happened to the dirt?
What happened to the dirt (and, presumably, the artifacts) removed from LSH when the monument was placed? In a thread several months ago it was pointed out that portions of the hill were lowered by as much as 12 feet. How and where were the tons of dirt dumped? What happened to the dirt when the road was built? At one time it was a sunken road. Apparently the dirt graded or dug up to make a smooth roadway was piled to each side. I've seen pictures of the road and the dirt on each side seems nearly three feet high. When the road was improved the dirt was removed. What happened to it? The same questions apply to the construction of the buildings, and the levelling of ground for the cemetery. What happened to the dirt? For that matter, how was the cemetery levelled? Was it graded? Is it possible some of the dirt from LSH, or other construction was moved to the cemetery and then rolled into the existing features? Is it possible that Nye-Cartwright was so rich in artifacts because scrapings were dumped there? These are only questions I have, but I do believe the "scientists" should be able to answer: what happened to the dirt?
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 14, 2006 18:50:59 GMT -6
Unable to start a controversy, as I'd hoped, with the previous post, I'll try again. Can anyone prove the existence of suicide boys without reference to John Stands In Timber? I, frankly, disbelieve the notion of suicide boys as promulgated by old John. I invite any who do believe in the suicide boys to educate me, but before you do read Margot Liberty's note 7, chapter 12, "Cheyenne Memories," and show earlier references to the "suicide Boys." Margot Liberty was editor and co-author of "Cheyenne Memories."
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 14, 2006 19:01:46 GMT -6
Let's add one more. Is there any evidence whatsoever of the deeds and participation of Wolf Tooth that is not directly traceable to the tales Wolf Tooth presumably told to his grandson, John Stands In Timber. Any evidence at all? Is there any mention of Wolf Tooth at the battle from any Indian at all who was there? Any?
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 15, 2006 7:54:05 GMT -6
darkcloud, thank you for this thread. Just a broad statement in reply (and in support). For months now I have been re-reading the accounts of the EYEWITNESSES in detail -- both Indian and soldier. I've poured over Camp's work, the RCOI and Indian testimonies from various sources. If one were to honestly study their accounts with no preconceived notions, no axe to grind, and no book to sell, the Battle of the Little Bighorn is actually closer to the "myth" that history has perpetuated (minus the heroic Custer image) than it is to the modern notions of the battle. Indian testimonies are amazingly consistent in describing a brief battle and panic rout. Only select comments taken out of context allow for a different interpretation. Initial reports of soldiers who witnessed the Custer field with their own eyes can find little evidence of a struggle or organized resistance. These are reports of OFFICERS who wanted to make their peers and fallen friends appear to have died in glory, but even they cannot bring themselves to see heroism or a plan of action. Then, over 100 years later, we find a few casings and change the scope of every eyewitness account that history has given to us. As you said, who knows who fired the guns that left the casings?
I would invite anyone to reexamine Camp, the RCOI (yes, it is dubious at times) and Indian testimony. Why do we refuse to believe those who were actually there? Even "Where Custer Fell" (an extraordinary work, by the way) goes to great lengths to "prove" where GAC actually died. Again OFFICER reports place him down from the top of the ridge, and describe the ridge top as something too narrow for a wagon to drive across. We can't even take them at their word for where they SAW HIM DEAD for crying out loud!
I think we seriously need to step back and look where all of these theories are going. Has our "reconstruction" actually taken us further from the truth?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 15, 2006 8:29:56 GMT -6
PhillyBlair,
One soldier claimed Custer was dead over with Keogh, as I recall. But most - correct me - who saw the body on the 27th said it was just over the top of LSH with a few soldiers, pretty much where the photo of Fouche shows and the monument is. The first burial was down the slope where the marker is now.
I've long claimed that familiarity with Victorian literary traditions would spark all sorts of red lights about the Little Bighorn's stories, because they follow the templates a little too on the nose, as it were. This is what I mean by general historical ignorance among Custerphiles, starting with the fact they would not consider the popular culture and literature of the time actual "history", which they think is restricted to rifling and troop movement. They will memorize trivia down to uniform buttons and their manufacture but not recognize the outlines of stories long told and well known of the time. They haven't read Roland or even the Arthurian romances or much of the poetry that was the norm back then, and these provided the templates for which current events were inserted.
I won't repeat the process, however tempting, but when you re-arrange the markers to accord with testimony it really does look like a panic dash cut down. And no shame to the 7th or Custer. He took one of those 50-50 chances and it didn't pan out. For once. If it had worked (who knows?) he'd be studied as a genius to this day. After all, the great Nelson's genius at Trafalgar was to abandon convention, briefly allow his T to be crossed, and engage in a knife fight. Had he lost, an arrogant idiot.
Custer is such an attractive tool of metaphor that people want to rearrange his end to support current issues of note to themselves but of no real relevance to Custer. For example, the Swiss brothers' childish worship of Custer and his perceived violence towards more 'barbaric' folk speaks to those who, I'd bet, find current massive foreign immigration into Europe by different races frightening.
And with local variation, I think it applies here. And hiding behind "science" doesn't stand, as you've noted, because it often isn't science at all, and doesn't and can't prove what is claimed, anyway. I think you're absolutely correct: we need to accept the original testimony till it's proven incorrect, not cherry pick alleged incidents and recollections.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 15, 2006 8:36:44 GMT -6
Wow...very well said, darkcloud.
As for where Custer died, I'll pull together some of the testimony and list the quotes. As with all other areas of LBH study, I'm open to being wrong about this aspect. But first let me state my case. I'll check back with the results.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 15, 2006 10:10:06 GMT -6
DC I would agree and there is no way to apply criminal rules of evidence. I find it odd that if one says they use a "forensic technique" it is believed by most to be evidence. It is not. To me all it means is the technique should result in the same finding if done by another applying the technique.
My reference to civil law was not to use a template just how to reach a conclusion for a theory. It should require full presentation and not just what one would like to use to support a theory. As you know civil law does not have criminal ramifications such being found guilty of a crime and going to jail or prison.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 15, 2006 11:49:24 GMT -6
DC---did I misunderstand the intent of this thread? Was it exclusively to deal with Custer and Custer field? I accepted it to deal with all possible illusions that influence interpretation of events. If I am wrong I apologize. But, if this is the proper place, I'd like explanations to the questions raised. What happened to the dirt? Were the suicide boys, as explained by John Stands In Timber, a reality? Did Wolf Tooth do all ascribed to him by old John? Is the absence of comment revealing?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 15, 2006 12:47:15 GMT -6
I'd ascribe lack of response to people who are annoyed by me, not anyone rejecting your query.
As for dirt, I'm not sure much was shorn off LSH. Brust, et al, seem to think it's not lowered much at all, and use the photos to show it. The dirt from the Weir Point butchering was pushed to the river side on the south. I doubt they'd carry dirt far if there was any. Nobody ever thought what has happened could happen with the attention over the years. Oh, and science.
I don't know about the cemetery. Problem is, we really have no clue what's gone on on this field for most of the time since the battle. My favorite barb about that is remarking about all the non-soldier cases found on the field, not excluding .22's. If manufactured before June 1876 and not military, they're claimed as "Indian" cases from the battle. But if you explain the other numerous cases as fired on the field at later times, what would have been the reasons, and who or what prohibited earlier ammo's use? By who?
There remain rumors of the field being salted with cases through the years so that VIP's and tourists could take them. A small sham to make the hike from civilization worth it. By what they knew at the time, big deal and happy kids. But when they're assumed battle related by scholars and historians - or, cynically, allowed to be thought such - that's problematic.
|
|
|
Post by d o harris on Jul 15, 2006 13:40:41 GMT -6
DC--lack of response due to people who are annoyed by you? Possible, but I think this self adulatory. The "evidences" of Custer field invite any interpretation. Eventually, I feel, and I think you do also, the application of logic and common sense must prevail, regardless of the interpretations of "scientists" who have "scientifically" investigated the battlefield. These findings must be measured against what was probable and possible and reaonable at the moment decisions were made. I do not see the connection. The questions I raised regarding the "suicde boys" and "Wolf Tooth" were intentionally provocative. The last thing we need is another narrative of the LBH. Yet, it seems we are to be continually afflicted with the same. A couple of members of this board have already extolled the pre-publication virtues and delineations of a park ranger which includes an elaboration of the role of the "suicide boys". If the "suicide boys" as delineated by John Stands In Timber actually existed then would someone please provide the evidence without referring to Old John. Once again, if I have misunderstood thre intent of this thread , I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 15, 2006 14:32:34 GMT -6
d o -- I agree with you therefore the only response from me is that your hitting the nail on the head. A single source is certainly not a preponderance of evidence. With as much contamination that has occurred at the battle sites it would take many. Even with that it appears most only present what supports their preconceived idea or their new theory.
I don't think you will find many takers.
AZ Ranger
|
|