|
Post by Tricia on Jul 17, 2006 8:39:51 GMT -6
As was the release of the grey horses ... I'm sure someone gave the order to the horseholders, for similar reasons as you have mentioned above, Elisabeth.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 17, 2006 9:09:27 GMT -6
You misstate my theory, if it can be so elevated. I neither know nor care what happened after MTC, and I do not have any insistence upon Custer being shot there. I only point out, as others have, that a wounded Custer or family member would prompt the actual command structure to take over from the official one, and would explain with no first-time evers for Custer the evidence as found.
I remain very interested in why people insist upon a last stand, and the emotion they bring to this, and how history can be at the mercy of those who can spell out the word for which DNA is the abbreviation for those who won't ever be able to. This is how springs and oracles became religious sites in the ancient world. It's a very old process, and because it embarrasses people to admit they're subject to religious - and not Christian - pull, they leap at the excuses 'science' grants them for their emotional attachment.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jul 17, 2006 9:16:36 GMT -6
Indeed, Leyton.
Though I'd still like to know how they had the time to do all these eminently sensible things. If the right wing had already been destroyed, the Indians would have been upon the LSH lot in seconds. One can only conclude that all the barricade-building took place while fighting was still going on in the Keogh area.
Another "what if". What if, instead of building barricades, the left wing had swooped down in a counter-attack on Crazy Horse and friends? Everybody still ends up dead, in all probability, but we might be left with a different picture from the slightly queasy one of that corral of officers on top of LSH ...
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 17, 2006 9:35:41 GMT -6
You misstate my theory, if it can be so elevated. I neither know nor care what happened after MTC ... I only point out, as others have, that a wounded Custer or family member would prompt the actual command structure to take over from the official one ... Who, then, comprises the membership in your "actual command structure?"
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 17, 2006 9:41:41 GMT -6
Elisabeth--
Perhaps. I think this is when the movement to Ford D might have been important--had it happened and happened at that time. If Custer realised the desperation of the situation and sent that company to the river, if even to grab just a few hostages, perhaps barricades were constructed by those left behind ... to protect said booty?
Just a thought.
(clarification: whilst above comments reflect a belief in action at Last Stand Hill, they do not necessary confirm a belief in that activity as the final action with the Custer battalion)
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 17, 2006 9:44:08 GMT -6
Regarding CV-5 (Yorktown) engagement at The Battle of Midway. It has been said that the wounded in CV-5's sick Bay were abandoned. Nothing could be further from the truth. All who could be found alive were evacuated as per military orders and protocol. For a vivid discription of the chaos and confusion as well as how the wounded were rescued, from a first hand description go to www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8791/cu5hist.html. It is sad so many errors in history are so perpetuated by mistatements being posted or published. It is easy to see how the same happens to the LBH and Custer's history. We must all have open minds and meticulously look for the truth in any subject. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 17, 2006 10:39:38 GMT -6
Ah yes, brand new user ID's to the rescue.
Men at Sea, Chapter 3, page 211 passim: (not the book about fishermen with photos with same name)
"Leave him and let's go - he's done for anyway."
The official story is often merely that, and anyone who abandoned the dying is unlikely to admit it. I wasn't there, I don't know, and stories are at variance. And our military, of course, would never lie to cover its ass. But if you don't buy it, there's the Indianapolis. The Navy's never come clean on that. And Bataan, of course.
Regarding Custer, the 'actual' structure was family, wherein TWC spoke for his brother often enough and with his blessing. What is the point of surrounding yourself with blood if not? Boston leaves his job when he wants to no surprise or condemnation when he'd be needed most.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 17, 2006 10:59:54 GMT -6
Apart from the "command" to Kanipe, when were other times in the past or on past campaigns TWC spoke for his brother? From my reading, if anything, GAC tended to ride his brother's butt when it came to even the perception of overstepping authority.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 17, 2006 11:00:40 GMT -6
A Last Stand does not necessarily mean a "heroic" last stand . . . it may have been there was no other choice but to kill the horses to form some kind of cover and try to hold out and keep looking for Benteen and Reno to save the day.
More than likely there were several other groups of soldiers trying to hold out that were not on the hill . . . the dash to the river may have been the last opportunity for safety or at least some type of cover.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 17, 2006 12:08:14 GMT -6
True, Crzhrs. Action at LSH does not mean that's where it all ended.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 17, 2006 12:08:25 GMT -6
Who brought the regiment forward that morning, for which GAC yelled at TWC? If he were merely another company leader, he'd only appear in the memory as much as Smith or another. But whenever you read of Custer, TWC is there out of all proportion to his mere rank/role. He was the brother and about always and if C were hurt but conscious, would speak for him and not Cooke.
If you read the Yellowstone or Washita or any of the 7th's stories/accounts and change TWC's name to Biff Jones, at some point the reader would have to wonder why this guy is all over the map, while Cooke is rarely mentioned, and why Jones hovers about.
Again, I have zero proof, and never claimed it, but if you want a short reason for Custer's 'last stand', I suggest the strong possibility that nepotism took a chomp that day. The roles described for Keogh's group make no sense to me for an offensive processs (or defense, but leave that....) and it makes sense to me only if they followed in rough parallel the lower unit's rush north under fire and then found themselves under fire and never found out why they ended where they did.
This attracts me solely because it's simple, complies with the Custer we know, requires no sudden dressage or manuever for which the 7th was utterly unlikely to premiere that day, and explains the body distribution. Rather, it doesn't conflict with it.
|
|
|
Post by analyst on Jul 17, 2006 12:11:37 GMT -6
Of course, what is sadder is someone who posts one off-beat reference then refuses to do the necessary research, particularly from eyewitness' to confirm the reports. In the interests of veracity more than one reference should be used if some major point regarding the military allowing their wounded to die on a routine basis. It also helps immensely if one has some experience in the military before they jump to conclusions regarding policy, protocol and tactics. The military have historically done their utmost to never leave wounded behind. There have always been instances where this was not possible. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy the military and individual airmen, soldiers, sailors and marines have never left anyone behind if they could help it, because if they don't, the results are disturbing and heartrending. Their efforts to rescue captured soldiers is truly amazing. Witness the IDF trying to rescue some soldiers in Lebanon currently. I noticed my referenced site does not pop up immediately. Try www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/879 if that does not work do a google search on uss yorktown. There were of course, two uss yorktowns that fought in WWII, but we are refering here to CV-5 which fought and was sunk at midway. CVS-10 was named Yorktown in honor of the first one for its gallanty and bravery. One unsubstantiated book quote does not a researched subject make. This should be remembered when researching LBH reports also. The uss Indianapolis and Bataan are two large subjects one of which I have read a few books on. But, once again let me say no one was purposely abandoned who possibly could have been saved. I might disagree with MacArthur's tactics, but he was extremely limited in resources. He did the best he could I believe, much like Major Reno and Capt. Benteen. I refer to the book American Ceasar. The Indianapolis I am not so familiar with. She was torpedoed after delivering a nuclear weapon to Tinean (?). I think about 1200 men went into the water, and two thirds were eaten by sharks. Perhaps some might believe that the navy should have exterminated all the sharks before we went to war? True negligence, eh. I don't think so. This is somewhat off subject so I suggest unsubstantiated innuendo regarding military misteps or negligence be limited to fact.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jul 17, 2006 12:15:47 GMT -6
True. I'd forgotten the moving of the column forward. But you're riding the Myth of Nepotism--and it is just as powerful as the Heroic Last Stand, though more cynical--into the ground. I still tend to think Army.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jul 17, 2006 12:31:32 GMT -6
You make it sound as if I'm claiming it was policy in the US military to leave the wounded. Nothing like that. But it's been done, generally for the greater good, and it's one of the myriad god awful decisions that soldiers have to make and to which idiots want to hold them to an all good/all bad criteria. Under civvie attack, the bureaucratic military claims 'all good,' which the facts do not bear out. Proof? Two words. "Pat Tillman."
It's why I retch at the grotesque hypocrisy of everyone - starting with Benteen, but Godfrey mostly - about Reno's concerns, perhaps suggestion. And like the Correct and Manual Specific Retreat Map From the Timber to Reno Estates nobody dares offer, nobody will dare tell us the whether the duty of the 7th was to die as a unit and save nobody if they can't save everyone. And if you cannot, along with dissing Reno's retreat, let's be quiet about that as well.
I said Battle of Midway, so of course CV-5 is the ship. The book and article in quoted in Men at Sea was by Walter Lord from his book Incredible Victory. If you have evidence and sources better than his, what is it? The website of the Pentagon is only slightly more credible than if written by an officer's mother.
We're in agreement. The problem is that someone's best decision sometimes isn't the right one. Badly wounded sailors and Marines were in the ship's hospital and the decision was made to leave them, probably because it would take too long for no result while endangering ships and men. Nobody thought they or the ship would last more than an hour or two. They were wrong, and the decision was made again two days later. Awful, but probably more awful for the guys who lived with the knowledge and decision.
You're not correct about the Indianapolis. An entire heavy cruiser goes missing. The Navy did what? The men were in the water for what, five days? After they were sighted, how long till rescue? The Navy blamed the captain for losing his ship, the only such verdict in our history. Drove him to suicide. ALL THIS RATHER THAN ADMIT THEY APPARENTLY DIDN'T CARE IN THE MIDST OF EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON. Sounds awful, but probably happens more often than admitted, and really, is it to be wondered at? Making life and death decisions about entire fleets and nations, something's going to slide. The evil is in not admitting it and blaming else.
Regarding myth of nepotism: so Maggie Custer DIDN'T lose three brothers, a nephew, a husband, and their close friends? Because you see if she did, that isn't myth, it's fact.
|
|
|
Post by PhillyBlair on Jul 17, 2006 13:15:58 GMT -6
Back to "wishful thinking calcifying into fact"....
crzhrs, I think you hit the nail on the head. Like so many other aspects of the battle, the Last Stand has some merit, but was it heroic? That's where the wishful thinking enters in.
As for that Last Stand, it's important to observe that the eyewitnesses were very mixed in their perception of how organized and heroic it was. In 1908 Kanipe writes:
"The horses were killed and scattered all over the hill, and at the point where Custer lay....There was (sic) not hardly any horses around where he was lying when found. The soldiers lay thick at this point. Custer was lying across two or three soldiers...."
Kanipe is not the only eyewitness who didn't necessarily believe that horses were shot for protection and a "stand." Like many others, Kanipe saw no order, plan or design to what he witnessed. Yes, there were dead horses on LSH, but there were dead horses everywhere else as well. All eyewitnesses remark that Custer was lying on top of other soldiers and that there was a cluster of men around Custer. This "bunching" was to be expected in such a harrowing time and, to me, proves that the leader was alive, active and had become a rallying point. However, this bunching also proves that there was chaos, no skilled resistance and a very swift end.
Witness after witness saw the Custer field as a chaotic flight and catastrophe. Some were Civil War veterans who were used to seeing battlefields and "formations of death" in the aftermath. These trained eyes saw very little formation and plenty of panic. More than any of us, and more than any writer of modern theories, these eyewitnesses were qualified to comment on the Custer fight. Their comments, along with Indian comments are fairly unified in content.
Clearly, there was a "stand" around Custer. But just as clearly, there is ZERO evidence to indicate that it was lengthy, well planned, or even remotely successful for even a brief amount of time. Personally, I think they were overrun in a matter of a few minutes when the gathering from the Calhoun and Keogh sectors took place. The run to Deep Ravine, to me, was merely the escapees from the attack on and collapse of LSH. Those who ran lived only a few moments more. About as long as it took to get to the ravine. Nearly all testimony is consistent with this. So there was a stand, but the "wishful thinking that has become calcified into fact" is devoid of any evidence or eyewitness.
DC, to get back to the heart of your thread, there is an inherent need in all of us to have heroes. This need also exists in the "soul" of nations. How many generations were brought up with the "Custer as hero" stories? Consider Teddy Roosevelt's comments about Custer, and even the information and stories that were squelched while Libbie Custer was still alive.
So I ask this......was it worse to have heroes such as Custer (unrealistic as it may have been), or is it now worse that we have no heroes because we're more interested in someone's closet then we are in their accomplishments? We seem to now be a "hero-less" nation. Whatever one thinks of the war in Iraq (and PLEASE, let's not turn this into a commentary of that), can you name a "hero" from this war? There are hundreds of stories of sacrifice, but where are they in the media reporting? So our "realism" today seems to have us at least as jaded as our ancestors were deluded. I'm not sure which one is worse.
|
|