Wishful Thinking Calcifying Into "Fact"

[crzhrs]

PhyllyB:

If we read the PRIMARY reports from the Reno/Benteen soldiers who immediately got to the scene of Custer's fight many of them could not find much of a organized defensive stand. We should go by those reports rather than months or even years later when many tried to find a heroic glory-filled resistance to justify the defeat.

This is not to say that soldiers did not defend themselves or attempt to put up a fight. Apparently things changed so rapidly that it's possible the men did not have time, plus the distance between companies resulted in a piecemeal defeat of Custer's command, rather than a large scale fight by all companies at one time.

And if we go by Indian testimony much of their fighting was long range from cover until many of the soldiers were dead and/or wounded or if the warriors sensed a vulnerability for them to charge and fight in-close.

[analyst]

Oh, Okay lets see if I understand your posting. First you quote something called "Men at Sea". "Lets leave him hes finished anyway." Who is leaving who and where are they leaving to? Then you later say you are quoting Walter Lord in his book Incredible Victory. I am confused as to what you are trying to convey here.
Then you say your citation from Lords book is much more credible than my eyewitness post. I do not understand your criteria for that? Do you have any?
Perhaps I misunderstood your position on the military. I had the distinct impression your post was a direct attack on military policy of abandoning wounded dating back to Benteens allegation Reno wished to desert the wounded at Entrenchment. If not I stand corrected.
Walter Lord is a good writer and a great yarn spinner in a very novelistic manner. Amazon, one rater says "He writes like a journalist rather than a historian." I would agree with that. There are numerous books much more factually done on The Battle of Midway as a factual basis than Lords. I do not intend to list them, because I believe my citation is much more factual than yours and it is first person account. I shant defend something so obvious further.
Pat Tillman? A soldier killed by friendly fire? You need to explain yourself more accurately. I am unsure as to what you are referring to here.
I am curious as to why you jump from subject to subject. It certainly complicates the discussion, don't you think?

[analyst]

I find that czars seems to offer a very good take on the so-called organized defensive stand. Nice to see a member outlining a sound logical position.

Just the facts mam!

[PhillyBlair]

Yes, crzhrs, it's the PRIMARY accounts I'm referring to. They should absolutely be given more weight, and they are strikingly unified. I also have no trouble believing, as you put it, a long distance battle that collapsed and ended quickly when it began to disentegrate. That's where I agree with the modern scholarship, but this is nothing more than an acknowledgement of what the Indian accounts told us from the outset. And they were THE PRIMARY witnesses.

[Tricia]

Custer was no more than a nepotist awash in a sea of nepotism. A common occurrence back then, really, it was. I'm not going to judge it good or bad--it's beyond the scope of this discussion. Still, I don't see how Your Myth contributes to the loss of his entire battalion; it's as pat as that of the convenient Heroic Last Stand or Custer Betrayed By Reno And Benteen.

Personally, I don't think even if GAC replaced one of his relatives' companies (okay, maybe C) with Benteen's company and leadership anything would have turned out different. We'd just be dealing with Harrington's eyewitness accounts, not Fred's acerbic ones. But they'd all still be dead.

The trick was the Seventh shouldn't have attacked in the first place. But there's that hindsight again ... dammit.

(I'm sure I f--ked up the possessive ... sorry)

[Tricia]

As I recall, Elisabeth started a thread forever ago that included the first European press account of the Last Stand, via a wire from America. I seem to remember that "spinning" was already rampant in that account ... is this where the Myth came to fruition?

[analyst]

"A nepotist awash in a sea of nepotism?" That sounds an awful like a rather dramatic writer! Quite good though.
A hindsight issue hmmm! Well like they say hindsight is not foresight by a ----sight.
Hey, if you can't trust your family members who can you trust? Now take my brother-in-law......
Well, another time!
My Best Wishes as usual!

[Dark Cloud]

Not to be Clintonian lawyerly, but it depends what you mean by "hero." At first, a hero was little more than the protagonist in epic myth. Then, as art allowed, monarchs and despots allowed themselves to be portrayed as heroes in myth, right up to Napoleon and beyond. In our Civil War and through WWI, the term changed dramatically. A hero in one war became a self adoring ass in another, doing little more than attracting fire and getting people killed as extras in his pose. MacArthur aspired to this, and a few others, but the public had moved on, especially here in America.

It isn't chatted about or even mentioned, but most of Texas and the Tidewater South and our west were settled by folks who were sick to bloody death of the Old Country's constant wars and class structure and they hated having an army too big for need or britches. Being against a standing army was a standard for conservatives, originally. You can verify the period when this went away by the literature read and taught. Beowulf and Roland and the Arthurian myths aren't read anymore. Heroes aren't romantic alpha males killing others and dying nobly in arms of other males who sob, at least anymore. Heroes are now people who risk all on behalf of others DESPITE their own loss or anonymity for the deed. Not glory. Not reward.

This is, frankly, the power of Christianity's logical influence. Sacrifice and nobility aren't announced by press release or tax deduction.

So, also frankly, the loss of Custer as a 'hero' is no catastrophe. He was self-centered and fully expected reward one way or the other. Some guy who screams "go!" to his unit, shoots his horse, and offers a short delaying fight to get distance between Sioux and his fellow soldiers somehow remains "an U.S. soldier" who fell here. Or close to here. Sorta buried. Eaten by coyotes, strewn under your feet. And utterly forgotten. Hero? Hero.

The unknown older guys who gave up elevator space in the Twin Towers for women and those younger who Guiliani mentions in In Memoriam.

Iraq? Several. But one is Jessica Lynch. Not for fighting (and the press initially said she'd fought to her last bullet - shameful garbage) but because she did not let anyone elevate her nor did she pretend to what she hadn't done and refused to be used while telling the truth. A lot for a 19 year old to deal with, both in opportunity to run from combat and in temptation to cash in. She did neither. Hail.

I think there is something very wrong when we have no embarrasment that we "need" heroes, and those only of the sort everyone has: a guy on a horse who wins battles.

To compare actual heroism in unasked-for duty and no reward and compare it to those who physically lust for fame and glory rather bugs me.

[rch]

Re Cooke,

The Little Big Horn marked the first time Cooke went into battle as regimental adjutant. Moylan was regimental adjutant at the Washita. Though the band took the fietd during the Yellowstone and Black Hills Expeditions, the regimental headquarters apparently remained in St. Paul. Calhoun served as acting assistant adjutant of the battalion of the 7th Cavalry in the field on both expeditions. As strange as it may seem, even though ten companies (later reduced to eight on the Yellowstone) went into the field on those occasions, these formations were each called a battalion. In both cases the 7th was divided into wings. For the Yellowstone expedition the wings were each divided into two 2 company squadrons. Tom Custer served as company commander on both occasions.

rch

[Dark Cloud]

You asked where I got the facts about the Yorktown. I told you a book called Men at Sea with the page number. It had excerpts from other books, and the chapter about the Yorktown was from Walter Lord's Incredible Victory. What in the world is confusing about that?

In the book, Lord lists his sources and who he's quoting. Do you need me to name the page and the citation? It's as easy for you to look up as me. Lord's book was highly regarded by the Navy, I recall.

Pat Tillman's official story of death has been officially changed many times, five at last count. The Army lied constantly and is being sued by Tillman's family. Bureaucracies protect themselves, often ineptly.

To brag about a policy abandoned at need, like wounded, is grotesque. They do the best they can, but the melodramatic "we leave no one behind" is hogwash in every service. They try. But it makes no sense to lose 40 to save two.

If there was any contradiction of Lord's book - by far the best seller on Midway - you'd think some vet would have brought it up. No one seems to have. That he's a good writer doesn't make him less believable than actual inarticulate garbage written by bitter old men, does it?

I don't bounce around, it's just that you miss the connections. The military, the world's biggest bureaucracy ever, lies a lot as they all do.

[Tricia]

The problem with Custer as hero (at LBH) with so many--even some on this board--is that others are then cast into the roles of anti-hero, or goat, or enemy. Heroic Custer dies at the hands of Savages. Heroic Custer betrayed by Reno. Heroic Custer killed while waiting for Benteen. People are neither all hero or all goat. I think admiration can be a more useful term when dealing with reality.

[analyst]

DC:
Does the forum have some secret code that they understand what you are talking about? I find myself absolutely mystified reading your posts. What in the world are you talking about?
I don't believe I used the word "Hero" in any posting today. So what is your long dialogue pertaining to. I could use some clerification, honestly.
Now the first clue I had is I mentioned MacArthur, the great WWII general. And I see you are saying he got alot of people killed. Well, I am at a loss for words, Gen. Douglas MacArthur had the lowest loss rate for combat personnel of all the commanders in WWII including the Admiral in command of the pacific operations and Gen. Eisenhower in Europe. It is true he walked around the front on many ocassions and did draw fire, but not to intentionally hurt other people. If you don't like American Army hero's, don't read about MacArthur.
The second point of yours which strikes my attention is you contending that "they (people of the west) hated having an army" around. My dear fellow what on earth have you been sniffing? Settlers were constantly calling for army protection against the indians from the government. Any perusal of any book on the indian wars covers the pleas for protection.
I have the feeling you tend to ramble around a lot. Thats OK if people know what you are talking about, but I had to read your post several times to determine what it was directed at. even partially. I must confess I simply don't understand some of your posts. This one in particular I don't have a clue. Sorry to be so dense.
You also seem to not understand some issues deeply. If you are really interested in some of these subjects I could recommend some excellent books.
javascript:add("%20:)")
Smiley

[PhillyBlair]

analyst, I believe DC's "hero talk" was directed toward a reply I had made.

DC -- eloquent stuff about heroes and you are absolutely correct -- heroes aren't often the people who are recognized as such. I work mainly with innercity poor in Philadelphia and I've met hundreds of heroes who will never make the newspapers. Athletes are not heroes, but our kids think they are (as did most of us as kids -- I know I did). The problem, as you said, Leyton, is that we live in a "hero or goat" society. It seems we intentionally put "heroes" on pedestals in order to knock them down. Then they become the goats. If you trace Custer's history, that's what happened over generations. It was a mixed bag at the start (check out those early editorials in the Fall of 1876 -- some were scandalously anti-military right after the battle), then the legend of Custer grew. He was a hero for generations. Then in the anti-military 1960's he became a villain ("Little Big Man" as a case in point). Now in an age of political correctness he is a rallying point once again for both sides (why else would Oliver Stone want to make another movie?).

Perhaps the problem is, as you both said, our insatiable need to have heroes and villains. Maybe we're all a mixture of both. Maybe Custer was too

[analyst]

Dc:
Oh OK, I get it now. Lord in his book quotes another book and you really don't have a direct citation. Also I don't find this book on Amazon.
I find again on Amazon Lord's book is #12 on Midway. Not your cited #1.
Shattered Sword by Parshall/tully is #1
The Unknown Battle of Midway by Kernan is #2
A Glorious Page in Our History by Cersman is #3
In a word, Yes, you do need to directly quote the direct citation, rather than confusing the issue.
What does Pat Tillman have to do with the Battle of Midway or Custer? People get killed by friendly fire, that's a tragic fact of war. Of course no one wants to own up to it. Once again, your sweeping generalities give you away. Of course, most of the time it does not make sense to throw away 40 to save 2, other times it does make sense. Porkchop hill is one example which comes to mind. You must try to understand there are no absolutes in war.

"In the book, Lord lists his sources and who he's quoting. Do you need me to name the page and the citation? It's as easy for you to look up as me. Lord's book was highly regarded by the Navy, I recall."

Here again I do not understand what you are talking about. First you say this book talks about and exposes the navy leaving it's wounded to die, then you claim the navy holds the book in high regard? All I can say is I am astounded at this type of discussion. Did they highly regard being exposed. What on earth are you trying to argue?
Something I further don't understand is your condemnation of "bitter old men"? Do you consider Michno, Gray or Cross bitter old men? They sure write some pretty good stuff in spite of it don't you think?
Bouncing around? You certainly do. If you expect people to appreciate all your subtle and not-so-subtle connections, you need to lay them out logically, solidly and substantiate them. Otherwise people will say, "What is that guy talking about".

[analyst]

PhillyBlair:
If I steeped on your toes, sorry. DC is very difficult for me to understand, let alone have a meaningful discussion with, but I am trying.