The basis for "absurd tales"

[mcaryf]

Phillyblair's thread asked us to find absurdities in what was said at the RCOI and to be honest that is not too hard, particularly with Martini. However, if we tried to be fair to people such as Benteen and Reno at the time we ought to ask ourselves what was it reasonable for them to think given the knowledge available.

We ourselves still do not know what happened to Custer despite having access to lots more Indian and white testimony and even modern archaeological science. What some of the people concerned had better than us was a direct knowledge of the man involved and his likely actions. So put yourself in their shoes and think about some of the difficulties in interpreting events.

As an example at one stage Benteen says words to the effect that Custer could have been destroyed by the time he got Martini's message. Plainly Benteen has an agenda here and should not really beleive it because of the reports of later firing. however, there is a certain rationale - Martini has said that Custer was charging into the village. One scenario has Custer charging towards the village, meeting overwhelming force, getting driven to LSH and destroyed all pretty rapidly. Certainly Benteen's interpretation of the battlefield was that the fight did not take up much time. The counter is plainly the firing heard later but take away that evidence and Benteen could have justification in thinking that Custer had been destroyed much earlier. He knew Custer well and probably would not expect, as we seem to, that Custer would be taking up time on little forays all over the area and never seriously attacking the Indians. I guess to Benteen that might have been an absurdity so in some attempted explanations he has to reject other evidence to the contrary and assume that Custer did attack and get destroyed quickly.

In his official report Reno supposes that Custer was intending to support him by attacking at Ford B (by the way West, you must distinguish between what Reno writes in his report after the event and what he testifies he thought at the time). The problem Reno has is that there was no clear evidence that Custer actually did attack strongly at Ford B and if he did and was repulsed with overwhelming numbers to LSH and destroyed how come he still seems to be fighting on an hour or so later? I would imagine that Reno has a big problem in understanding what might have actually happened because again he cannot explain Custer's actions in the light of his knowledge of the man. By the time of the RCOI, Reno knows some of his officers and men saw Custer up on the bluffs whilst his own force was still advancing up the valley. He would probably know that Custer should have been able to get to Ford B and attack whilst he was still fighting on the valley floor but apparently that did not happen, how can Reno explain this in his own mind?

My point in this post really is to wonder what people like Benteen and Reno really did think had happened, as opposed to what they might have said at various times when they were also trying to justify themselves. My guess is that it remained a real puzzle for them and this largely explains the various contradictory statements they made over the years.

Regards

Mike

[shan]

many good points on several threads today.
mcaryf is right to bring us back to the men in question and their interpretation of events, both on their day to day experience of their commander, and what they experienced and saw both during, and after the battle. Yes they had agendas, and yes they may have still been shocked by both the result and the furore about the battle, but they were there and had seen many of the things the rest of us can only hypothesize about. I suspect they were a lot clearer in their own minds in the days that followed the battle, but as pressure grew, and they began to be told what happened by men who were not even there, so they began to feel somewhat confused.
This brings me to Elizabeth's point about company C, and whether there is any evidence for any fighting around Calhoun coulee. Many authors now seem to feel that comp C was sent down into that area to drive back the Indians who threatening the horse stationed in its upper reaches, but having been to the battlefield and seen that coulee, I would contend that would seem to be a daft place to put your horses. The animals would have always been vulnerable, not only to the Indians who were supposedly creeping up Calhoun Coulee, but more especially to a number of warriors who, from quite early on in the fight, would have been sniping from Greasy Grass area, as well as others using parts of lower Deep ravine .
Due to the layout of the landscape, I would think it much more likely, certainly during the early part of the fighting, that the low channel that runs roughly North and East from the rise where the bodies of Calhoun and Critterton found, would have been a perfect place to secret the horses, the animals would have been out of sight right up until the first infiltrating Indians arrived along that long row of low bluffs to the North and East of Keoghs position, { if indeed he was ever held in reserve in that position, something I'm increasingly beginning to doubt,} which leaves us looking for another explanation for the dead sergeants of C company being along Calhoun ridge.
It seems likely from the Indian stories that Lame White man instigated and attack on one company or other who came down from the ridge, now whether this was C at the Calhoun end, or E, as was previously believed, from the LSH end you takes your pick. But given that a number of men were from company C, one has to admit to them having been there for one reason or another.
Which brings to greenpheons assessment of how much ammunition, and how long it would have taken to use it up. The how long part of the question seems to me to be marked out by two observations. As far as one can tell Benteens and Renos men first noticed firing around 4.20-4.25 [ I'm using Greys timing here, } There may well have been firing before that, indeed I would contend that there was, but the above mentioned men had been preoccupied with their own problems, and what they could still see down on the valley floor. The next observations are the confused ones we get from Weir and those with him at around 5.25, firing that they mainly seem to ascribe to the Indians. I'm convinced that what they were seeing was the mopping up operations, not just around Calhoun, but further along the ridge out of their sight. Two hours after being seen up on the bluffs, most of Custers command were dead.
The rate of use of ammunition is another matter, but if I put myself in the trembling boots of one of those troopers, if I see Indians getting nearer and nearer, some of them getting behind me, if I see many of the horses of the command breaking free and running off, if I see my sergeants and officers going down, I would be firing as fast as my sweaty fingers would allow me.
Shan

[PhillyBlair]

Good stuff here, mcaryf, and I certainly had no intention to make a fool of anyone in the "Tales of the Absurd" thread. I was trying to be light-hearted, but that is difficult to do on this site -- seems that so many have solidified views. I've never believed that Custer was an irrational fool, and I've also never believed that Reno or Benteen were blameless. It was a series of unforeseen events that led to the debacle, and each main player was both guilty and innocent in many respects -- as in most battles. If Custer had lived and there was still a RCOI -- that would have been interesting!

Having said that, don't you think there was clearly a unified front (I very intentionally did NOT use the word "conspiracy") on the part of the officers to deflect certain key points? For instance, if heavy firing could be heard, and if Custer could be seen from Weir Point, then Benteen and Reno look cowardly. Other officers admitted to hearing and seeing both, but their recollections became vague three years after the fact (they heard shots -- maybe they were volleys -- not sure -- they saw LSH -- Indians were shooting at "objects on the ground" -- Martini was a buffoon, etc). You know the story. Shan, you mentioned that their recollections were perhaps hazier three years later, but I would ask why were they so clear when talking to Walter Camp or Graham 30-50 years later? Do we really believe that a person in harm's way doesn't recall every moment? Think back to a traumatic event in your life. You remember everything because your mind was on high alert. The memories of LBH were burned into the memories of these men for the rest of their lives -- and vividly. That's why I believe the RCOI was such a mockery. First of all, it was a mockery to even have Reno go through it. I know it was held at his request, but we all know that there was a public outcry and he had to clear his name. He did nothing to warrant such an inquiry, especially when compared to other figures in US military history who did worse but suffered no fallout. But since we must have a "live" villain behind every disaster there was the RCOI. Yes, we need to cut Benteen and others some slack, but the fact remains that the RCOI was a mess if scrutinized.

[Dark Cloud]

This is like the cruel - but accurate in its way - joke about the Vietnam Vet. Returning to work after a holiday, the vet is asked how his vacation went. The Vet jumps on his questioner and screams "You don't know! You weren't THERE!'

What you say is debatable, Phillyblair. People in trauma often do NOT recall everything. They may or may not recall ANYthing, and if they do, what is recalled is incorrect. The Titanic is the clear and obvious example. Hundreds know it went down in one piece because they were there and saw it. The others know it broke in two because they saw it. One huge segment is utterly incorrect. (They may both be, technically....) Nobody's lying or has any reason to. It's not like they were distracted playing XBox.

Apparently, two guys in the same foxhole in a prolonged fight will see and hear and resolve upon utterly different things, and if they aren't allowed to talk before writing a report will give such different accounts as to leave the impression one is lying. But they both could be as honest as the day is long. The mind under shock and trauma sees and does different things at different times depending on the person and a zillion other affecting entities. They may very well THINK they are telling the truth, and insist upon it, and the other lying.......or stoned, drunk, crazy. In fact, if the stories are in lock step and disagree on nothing, it's highly suspicious. Possible? Yeeees, but........

ALL formal dog and pony shows are jokes, and Reno's Inquiry (or Pearl Harbor's various trials, or that of the Indianapolis' captain)was no exception. But the fact is, you can take any action and subject it to the same attention this event has and find the same or worse numbers of contradictions, crappy questioning, answers unqueried or straightened out, and people trying to hide stuff, generally pretty prosaic but a Pandora's box to them. I truly think Benteen, for all his faults, knew all this, played along, deflected and confused everyone.

They weren't there. They couldn't KNOW.

[analyst]

Of course, any traffic officer can tell you about eye witness accounts to traffic accidents! Rarely are any two the same. It gets worse as the event becomes more traumatic. I have seen witness' who have had a firearm pointed in their face who could not descibe the robber. Great description of the gun.
These people are not lying, they have been subjected to severe trauma and are trying to describe what their senses portrayed to them. Gross terror makes it realy difficult to get a factual story. People are products of their lives and experiences to say nothing of their prejudices or accurate memories. Compare someone who is older and suffers from Alziemer's to the military scout trained to recall detail. Everyone else is probably scattered in between.
Formal trial or investigative proceeding in America are hardly jokes' as any superior court, prosecutor's office, or the military Inspector General's office can explain to anyone seriously interested. They are formal proceedings designed to find the truth. Anyone who does not have the education or IQ to realize the seriousness or validity of these proceedings and the great lengths Americans go to make sure they are fair and factual should immigrate to countries were these proceeding's could more be characterized as indeed a "joke", these persons education would indeed be increased!
Sure, it may not be perfect, but what is?

[PhillyBlair]

DC and analyst -- you make good points, but let me add this..........you're both basically talking about PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) -- referred to by other names in military circles, but all under the same psychological umbrella. I would agree with you that a private on Reno Hill, surrounded for two days and under extreme duress, would be a prime candidate for PTSD. DC you mentioned the Titanic, another classic example where ALL would have PTSD as it was so horrific and they had no similar life experience. But Benteen? Godfrey? Edgerly? Reno? Memories are actually heightened when fear is not involved. Benteen was walking up and down his lines amid a hail of bullets. He was not afraid and I doubt that his memory was clouded by PTSD. It was more likely heightened by the adrenalin rush and concentration.

You're both right about some. Memories are certainly unreliable from some who experience combat stress, but not all. I don't think Benteen's memory was impaired. I do think that he was smart enough to know how to say what he had to say and dance around the rest.

[mcaryf]

I agree that no two people see an event the same way but this was not really the main point in my original post.

I was more concerned with the thought that Reno and Benteen could never have been confident as to how Custer's fate actually evolved and what the motivation might have been for his movements.

It would have been so much easier for Reno and Benteen if Custer had obviously attacked at Ford B around 3-45pm met overwhelming numbers of Indians and been driven back and destroyed about the same time as Reno was undertaking his charge. This action would have been entirely in character and neither of them would have much reason to feel guilt about it. Their initial sight of the dead bodies at LSH etc would have been fairly consistent with this sort of scenario

However, it must have gradually become apparent to them that no great battle had taken place at Ford B and that for some reason the Custer fight had gone on rather longer than they might have first thought. Then there was the problematic issue of the gunfire that they may or may not have heard themselves.

Even today we cannot explain what Custer was attempting at Ford B and subsequently. They too must have puzzled over this and tried to persuade themselves as well as others that whatever happened they were not really blameworthy. To us it is an interesting puzzle and it does not really matter if we never solve the mysteries, but to them undestanding why things happened as they did was a vital factor to their own self esteem. In those dark moments that occasionally crowd in on even the most cheerful of us they must have had so many "if only" thoughts. Given the mysteries of Custer's movements and motivation that lay at the centre of this, it is not surprising that some of Reno and Benteen's and other's versions of events were not always consistent or even logical.

Regards

Mike

[Dark Cloud]

I'm not talking about PTSS, which I think you've misidentified. I'm talking about events that become implanted immediately in memory that just didn't happen. This can be true whether or not they suffer from syndromatic stress AFTER the trauma. Not everyone suffers from PTSS after going through traumatic events, in any case.

And mcaryf's point is what is probably shared by anyone who has been in combat command. If I'd done this, that wouldn't have happened. I could have been better and brought more of my guys back. It must be awful.

[elisabeth]

mcaryf, you put it beautifully.

Their attempts to puzzle it out may have been yet further clouded by the interpretations they'd arrived at before Reno Hill was relieved. The Custer-attacking-the-village scenario was completely in line with what they knew of Custer ... but so, equally, was a Custer-goes-off-and-leaves-us-to-our-fate one. No-one seemed to have any trouble believing that at the time. The discovery of what had actually happened must have been all the more traumatic in the light of the harsh words used about Custer during the siege.

If they'd trusted Custer more, they'd have done more: that must have been one of the fears that haunted them.

[PhillyBlair]

Mike, I went back to your initial post here and read again what you were driving at. I very much agree with you that no one ever really knew what happened, and that this was likely a source of consternation for the rest of their lives. But I have to part company with you and DC when it comes to their recollections, and since you are referring to the RCOI three years after the battle I just can't agree that the conflicting testimonies were the result of not knowing what happened to Custer. To break your argument down to it's core, I hear you saying this:

"Benteen and others could not accurately relate their accounts of the battle because they didn't know what happened to Custer."

I agree totally that they carried guilt for the rest of their lives. I agree that confusion about the Custer part of the battle led to SOME discrepancy in accounts, especially as they related to intersections with the Custer battle and timeline. But to say that Benteen couldn't remember the number of Indians within a guess of 5,000, could say that the packs were seven miles back, couldn't recall any firing sounds from Custer, swore up and down that the Custer field could not be seen from Weir Point..... this just doesn't make sense to me. I think your recognition of the guilt they bore is accurate, but I don't think it applies to their "impaired memories" later. And again, I have the utmost respect for Benteen and don't think that Reno was incompetent. If I blame anyone for June 25, 1876 it's Custer. But I just can't ignore the CYA that was taking place at the RCOI. I don't blame them. Given the circumstances I would have done the same thing.

Below is a link that gives the military definition of PTSD from the Department of Veterans Affairs. It's interesting to consider the lives of Reno, Weir and others in the aftermath of the battle when seen in this light.

www.ncptsd.va.gov/faq.html

[Dark Cloud]

Different memories are not necessarily the result of trauma or impairment or dishonesty. People are trained differently by self and unique past how to remember things.

Define "the Custer Field." Was this a reference to LSH or to the entire area to Cartwright? Did everyone have the same definition and use it? Was LSH visible on the 25th from Weir Point, or was it so dusty that all that could be seen were the nearer portions like the Calhoun area? Was the visibility constant for the period they were on Weir Point, so different people saw different things? Benteen was among the first there, and among the first to return. For all we know, he told the truth. The Custer Field, among several terms, has a varying definition in the RCOI, which nobody tries to solidify. This inquest couldn't distinguish between Weir Point and Sharpshooter Hill.

I know what PTSD is, and I wasn't referencing it.

[PhillyBlair]

Different memories are not necessarily the result of trauma or impairment or dishonesty. People are trained differently by self and unique past how to remember things.

C'mon now, DC. You and I both know that how anyone was trained or socially conditioned has nothing to do with recalling the pack train as seven miles back while Hare claims it took him only a few minutes to get there from Reno Hill, and Martin claimed it was 150 yards behind Benteen before that. This is only one of many examples that have nothing to do with training or conditioning.

I also think you're "straining a gnat" as to the importance of defining "Custer's field." Does it really matter? They saw smoke, heard firing, and some certainly saw more than smoke. If there was any confusion as to Sharpshooter's vs. Weir Point it was certainly cleared up in later years when Edgerly, Godfrey and dozens of others shared their recollections. If anything, Benteen's possible description of Sharpshooter Ridge only proves his attempt to obfuscate what took place. Edgerly advanced well past Weir Point and was given signals from Weir Point. This could not have taken place from Sharpshooter Ridge.

I know that posts, like emails can have their tone misinterpreted. I'm not trying to belittle you in any way -- please know that. I just don't know why we can't say yes, there were clearly misrepresentations at the RCOI, but this does not make Reno, Benteen or anyone else guilty of abandoning Custer.

[Dark Cloud]

"You and I both know that how anyone was trained or socially conditioned has nothing to do with...." But I don't know that. You can't know that either. Because, of course, it does.

But, for the giggle, explain at what point it became Reno's duty to abandon Terry's plan and the 7th's mission to "save" Custer. Tell us how many wounded, how many functioning horses Reno had. Also? Give us the correct or plausible number to guard the wounded on a foray north by the others, leaving them with all that attractive ammo a mile from what many called the largest camp ever (a huge one, in any case).

Much of the confusion at the RCOI, and the supposed conflicts, is likely because people who saw/did things from Sharpshooter were elbowed into saying it happened at Weir Point, decidedly higher and closer to LSH. Sharpshooter wasn't on the RCOI map. It isn't cleared up when the RCOI is still quoted.

In a pack train spread over a mile, by testimony, that took more than an hour from first to last mule to arrive even as they hurried, explain what the correct description of "the train" is. The first mule? The last? The majority? Which was Benteen referencing in his various reports, and from where?

[PhillyBlair]

DC, you've got to finish my quote if you're going to quote me. Social conditioning has nothing to do with the issues I raised about the RCOI and cloudy memories. Beyond that one point we have no disagreements. As I've repeatedly said, I don't fault Reno or Benteen for ANYTHING. They did the best they could do under the circumstances. I say again, Custer is to blame in this, not Reno or Benteen.

As for "Sharpshooter vs. Weir", "where do the packs begin", "define the Custer field", etc..... you're starting to sound very "Clintonian." Are you going to ask what "is" means next?

Custer was at fault.
Reno and Benteen did the best they could.
Reno and Benteen were less than truthful at the RCOI.

That's my take.

[AZ Ranger]

I would think that role and function of the individual would have a great influence on what is remembered. If you were a horseholder maybe the fear of the horses stuck in your memory. Therefore anything that might spook a horse was significant. If you were Reno he may have focused more on his battalion. Maybe he saw his troopers weren't up to the immediate task. A Crow might have remembered more about the Indian horses. If you were looking for the pack train then the first mule lets you know you are there. If you are concerned with the safety of the pack train then you wait for the last one.

In order to remember something it has to have some significance to you. Every individual would have a different criteria on what they remembered. Compound that with personal perceptions.

In my line of work when two persons relate the exact same story it is immediately suspect.